Pale Case Digest Batch 9 2019 2020

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas, “Out of the Mountain of DESPAIR, a stone of HOPE.” –MLK Jr.
Petitioner also filed a civil case against a certain
TOPIC: POWER TO I NVE STI G ATE AND
Atty. Taala, who was allegedly involved in the
RESOLVE JUDICI AL M AT TERS
falsification.
1. Tan v IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline In the course of the proceedings in the said civil
case, petitioner claim to have gathered more
Facts: information and seen the "extent of the plot or
machinations" of respondent and the
This petition stemmed from a pending disbarment participation of other individuals, including Atty.
case. Taala.
1. There are already pending civil and criminal On 16 June 2003, petitioner filed with the IBP-CBD
cases against the respondents. In this disbarment a Motion to Amend/Supplement the Complaint
case, petitioner implored the IBP-CBD to make a with Motion to Admit Amended/Supplemental
finding that respondent lawyers be found liable for Complaint, claiming that respondent and Atty.
using untruthful statements under oath (in their Taala had facilitated and recommended the
Verified Answer to the admin case), conspiracy to approval of the allegedly spurious loans and
commit estafa, employing deceit and other mortgage entered into by John Dennis Chua. The
manipulative acts as well as fraud, and Commission denied the motion on the ground
falsification of public documents ─ charges which that the amendments/supplements involve
are included in his allegations in the civil and proceedings pending before the trial courts and
criminal cases. Basically, the alleged untruthful that
statements in respondents’ Verified Answer were
lifted by petitioner and included it in his Amended the determination of the matters presented
Complaint in the civil case. belong to said courts which have already
acquired jurisdiction over them.
Sometime in January of 2002, petitioner Tan
stockholder and director of co-petitioner CST, IBP-CBD also denied petitioner’s MR, ruling that
discovered that two parcels of land owned by the the Commission cannot make a premature
corporation were used to obtain loans from finding on and/or investigation of the alleged acts
Philippine Business Bank (PBB), with the real estate of Atty. Taala since the same are the subject of a
mortgage annotated at the back of the titles pending civil case.
covering the properties. Upon verification, he
learned that a certain John Dennis Chua, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari imputing
representing CST, mortgaged the properties. grave abuse on IBP-CBD. They claim that the
Chua was purportedly authorized by the Board of denial to admit the Amended/Supplemental
Directors of the corporation as shown by the Complaint would have the effect of preventing
Corporate Secretary’s Certificate dated 04 April petitioner from filing a new complaint against
2001 signed by Atty. Jaime N. Soriano respondent along with Atty. Taala for their
(respondent). conspiratorial illegal acts involving the same loan
transactions, as any judgment of the Commission
Petitioner filed a letter-complaint with the IBP on the original complaint may serve as res
charging respondent of deceit, malpractice, judicata to bar judgment on the other acts
falsification of public documents, gross complained of in the Amended/Supplemental
misconduct and violation of oath of office. Complaint. Likewise, limiting the facts and issues to
According to petitioners, respondent has never those defined in the original complaint would
been elected as corporate secretary nor acted as make respondent answerable only for the less
such for CST, and in fact no board meeting was serious charges subject of the original complaint
held on 30 March 2001 to so authorize John but not for the graver charges in the
Dennis. Furthermore, John Dennis Chua has never Amended/Supplemental Complaint regarding
been connected in any capacity with CST, respondent’s untruthful allegations.
petitioners aver.
1|P a g e
EH401|A.Y. 2019-2020|Borata|Dadol|Jailani|Javier|Kinazo|Manit|Ricalde|Zosa
In addition, petitioner claim that respondent’s or falsity of said statements are still to be litigated
allegations in his Verified Answer are untruthful in the civil case.
and perjurious as he knowingly cited untruthful
testimonies and affidavits from the records of the Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, they
civil case with the RTC. belong to a class of their own, and are distinct
from that of civil or criminal actions. To be sure, a
Petitioners thus pray of this Court to set aside the finding of liability in a civil case or a conviction in
Commission’s order denying admission of the a criminal case is not necessary for finding a
Amended/Supplemental Complaint, or in the member of the bar guilty in an administrative
alternative, allow petitioner to file a new proceeding. However, in the instant case, the civil
complaint against respondent and Atty. Taala and criminal cases involving the acts referred to in
based on the same loan transactions. the proposed amended/supplemental complaint
are still pending adjudication before the regular
Respondent claims that petitioners breached the courts. Prudence dictates that the action of the
rule that proceedings against attorneys should be Commission related to the proposed
kept private and confidential, when the latter amended/supplemental complaint in the
disclosed in Civil Case No. 02299 the contents of administrative case be sustained in order to avoid
his Verified Answer filed before the Commission, contradictory findings in that case and in the court
quoting almost verbatim said contents. This had cases.
the effect of announcing to the whole world the
pending disbarment case, respondent stresses, The call for judiciousness stems from the need to
and is meant to harass and vex him, as well as to ensure the smooth and orderly disposition of the
damage his reputation even before a final verdict related cases pending before the courts and the
is reached by the Commission. Commission and avert conflict in the rulings in the
bar discipline case and in the judicial cases.
Issues: Preemption of the regular courts by an
administrative case is a worrisome spectacle.
1. Can the IBP-CBD make a ruling on matters
(perjury, conspiracy to commit estafa, etc.) 2. Yes. A review of the records disclose that
already pending in the regular courts? No. petitioners lifted and cited most of the
amendatory averments in respondent’s Verified
2. Did petitioner breach the rule on confidentiality Answer in the administrative case as the core of
of proceedings against attorneys? Yes. their Amended Complaint in the civil case. In fact,
petitioners even identified the Verified Answer
Ruling:
and the disbarment proceedings itself as the
sources of the averments in the Amended
1. No. Obviously, the Commission is not
Complaint before the trial court.
empowered to resolve matters which are pending
resolution by the regular courts to which
Disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer are
jurisdiction properly pertains. The IBP-CBD is merely
private and confidential until its final
tasked to investigate and make
determination. The confidential nature of the
recommendations on complaints for disbarment,
proceedings has a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i) to
suspension and discipline of lawyers. It is not a
enable the court and the investigator to make the
regular court and thus is not endowed with the
investigation free from any extraneous influence
power to investigate and resolve judicial matters
or interference; (ii) to protect the personal and
pending before the regular courts.
professional reputation of attorneys from baseless
charges of disgruntled, vindictive and
In the proposed Amended/Supplemental
irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting the
Complaint, petitioners seek to hold respondent
publication of such charges pending their
administratively liable for his "untruthful and
resolution; and (iii) to deter the press from
perjurious" statements in his Verified Answer in the
publishing the charges or proceedings based
administrative case. Precisely, however, the truth
thereon.
2|P a g e
Petitioners had in effect announced to the world confronted with the letterhead bearing her
the pending disbarment case against respondent. signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio,
Not only did they disclose the ongoing Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo
proceedings, they also divulged most, if not all of A. Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named
the contents of respondent’s Verified Answer. as senior partners because they have investments
Clearly, petitioners’ acts impinged on the in her law office. Later on, the complainant filed a
confidential nature of the disbarment proceedings Motion to Withdraw Complaint after allegedly
against Atty. Soriano. realizing that this disbarment complaint arose out
of a misunderstanding and misappreciation of
The petition is DISMISSED. facts and that she is no longer interested in
pursuing the case. The motion however was not
TOPIC: N ATURE OF PRO CEEDI NGS acted upon by the IBP.
2. Cambaliza v Cristal-Tenorio
Facts: Issues:
1. WON the inaction of the Motion to
Complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a Withdraw Complaint was proper. (MAIN)
former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B.
Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter 2. WON respondent is guilty of the acts
with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and alleged.
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
Ruling:
- On deceit: Respondent falsely
represented herself to be married to
Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a 1. YES. The withdrawal of the case by
prior and subsisting marriage with complainant does not, in any way,
another woman. exonerate the respondent. As ruled in the
- On Grossly Immoral Conduct: case of Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos:
Respondent caused the
dissemination to the public of a
libelous affidavit derogatory to A case of suspension or disbarment may
Makati City Councilor Jacome. proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
- On Malpractice or Other Gross the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
Misconduct in Office: Respondent basis of the facts borne out by the record, the
cooperated in the illegal practice of charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
law be her husband, who is not a has been duly proven.
member of the Philippine Bar.
Complainant presented the
This rule is premised on the nature of
letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law
disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for
Office where the name of Felicisimo
suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil
R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior
action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
partner and a Sagip Communication
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
Radio Group identification card
proceedings involve no private interest and afford
signed by the respondent as
no redress for private grievance. They are
Chairperson where her husband is
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
identified as “Atty. Felicisimo R.
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
Tenorio, Jr.”
preserving courts of justice from the official
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them.
Respondent denied all of the allegations. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his
However, during cross-examination when conduct as an officer of the court. The
3|P a g e
complainant or the person who called the Since ISRC’s recruitment license had already
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged expired, ISRC filed an application for renewal of its
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has recruitment license with the POEA. However,
generally no interest in the outcome except as all during the pendency of the aforementioned
good citizens may have in the proper appeal with the Office of the President (or in 1992),
administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence the respondent entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with a U.A.E. national, Mr.
on record warrants, the respondent may be
Juma, the husband of herein complainant Agno.
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.
More than 3 years after the execution of the
aforesaid agreement, a Complaint-Affidavit for
2. The charges of deceit and grossly disbarment was filed with this Court by the
immoral conduct were not substantiated. complainant against the respondent claiming
However, the respondent is guilty of that the latter used fraud, deceit and
assisting in the unauthorized practice of misrepresentation, in enticing her husband, Khalifa,
law when she allowed a non-member of to join ISRC and invest therein the amount of
the Bar to misrepresent himself as a ₱500,000.00 and that although the respondent
lawyer, thus violating Rule 9.01 of the CPR. received the aforesaid amount, the complainant
The term “practice of law” implies learned from her inquiries with the SEC and the
POEA that the respondent failed to comply with
customarily or habitually holding oneself
the terms of the MOA.
to the public as a lawyer for
compensation. this case, Felicisimo R.
The complainant found out that the said MOA
Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds
could not be validated without the approval of
himself out as one. His wife, the
the Board of Directors of ISRC. While respondent
respondent herein, abetted and aided
even had the complainant sign an affidavit
him in the unauthorized practice of the stating that she was then the acting Treasurer of
legal profession. Respondent admitted to ISRC, her appointment as Treasurer was not
this fact during the hearing. Respondent is submitted to the SEC. The records of the SEC
suspended for 6 months. showed that the Board of Directors, officers and
stockholders of ISRC remained unchanged and
her name and that of her husband did not appear
3. Agno v Cagatan
as officers and/or stockholders thereof. From the
Facts: POEA, on the other hand, the complainant
learned that ISRC’s recruitment license was yet to
Respondent Cagatan was the President of be reinstated.
International Services Recruitment Corporation
(ISRC), a corporation engaged in the recruitment The complainant claimed that respondent used
of Filipino workers for overseas employment. ISRC’s for his own personal benefit the ₱500,000.00 that
recruitment license was cancelled by the DOLE for she and her husband invested in ISRC.
violation of labor law provisions and subsequently,
was forever banned from participating in overseas  When she demanded that respondent
recruitment. return the said sum of money,
respondent issued a bank check dated
The respondent appealed the DOLE’s March 1994 in favor of the complainant
cancellation of ISRC’s license with the Office of in the amount of ₱500,000.00 which was
the President. The appeal was resolved by the said dishonored for being drawn against a
office in respondent’s favor, which set aside the closed account.
order of cancellation and directed both the DOLE  Despite repeated demands by
and the POEA to renew the recruitment license of complainant, the respondent failed to
ISRC subject to the payment of a guarantee bond settle his obligation or redeem his
which was double the amount required by law. dishonored check, prompting the
complainant to file a case for violation
4|P a g e
of B.P. 22 against the respondent. An against him instead of seeking rescission
information was filed before the MTC of of the Deed of Assignment and refund
Cainta, Rizal, charging the respondent of the consideration for the sale of the
with the said offense and a warrant of shares of stock.
arrest was issued against respondent  Surmised that they decided not to
after the latter failed several times to proceed with the MOA when
attend his arraignment. complainant had secured her own
license after she had received the Deed
Respondent: of Assignment and assumed the position
of acting treasurer of the ISRC.
 Denied the charges against him and  Justified the non-submission of copies of
averred that while ISRC’s recruitment the MOA, Deed of Assignment and
license was cancelled by the DOLE in complainant’s appointment as Acting
1988, such cancellation was lifted by the Treasurer with the SEC because of the
Office of the President on March 1993, cancellation of ISRC’s license to recruit
on appeal. and the pendency of the appeal for
 During the pendency of the said appeal, reinstatement since 1989.
he and complainant’s husband Khalifa
entered into a Memorandum of IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD):
Agreement because the latter offered Recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED
to buy shares of stock of ISRC in order to from the practice of law in the maximum period
finance the then pending appeal for the prescribed by law and to return the money
reinstatement of the ISRC license and for received from the complainant. Respondent
Khalifa and the complainant to manifested lack of candor, when he knowingly
undertake the full management and failed to provide the complainant with accurate
operation of the corporation. and complete information due her under the
 That while there were still legal circumstances.
procedures to be observed before the
sale of shares of ISRC to non- Board of Governors of the IBP: Adopted and
stockholders, Khalifa and complainant approved with modification, the report and
were in a hurry to start the business recommendation of the investigating
operation of ISRC. Consequently, commissioner. Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan is
respondent sold and assigned his own SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
shareholdings in ISRC for ₱500,000.00 to years and Restitution of the money received from
Khalifa as evidenced by a Deed of complainant.
Assignment. The respondent, in turn,
issued a check in the amount of Issues:
₱500,000.00, which was not intended to
be encashed but only to guarantee the
1. Whether or not complainant, not being a party-
reimbursement of the money to Khalifa
in-interest in the agreement between respondent
and the complainant in case the
and Mr. Juma, has no legal standing to file the
appeal would be decided adversely
instant complaint. (NO, they have legal standing)
against ISRC. Conversely, the check
would be returned to respondent if the
appeal is resolved in favor of ISRC.
 Denied employing fraud or
misrepresentation since allegedly, 2. Whether or not respondent employed fraud,
Khalifa and the complainant decided to deceit or misrepresentation when he entered into
buy his shares after being told, upon the Memorandum of Agreement with Khalifa and
inquiry in Malacanang, that ISRC had a received from the latter a sum of money in the
good case. amount of ₱500,000.00. (YES)
 Averred that complainant was
motivated by bad faith and malice in Ruling:
allegedly fabricating criminal charges
5|P a g e
1. (RELATED TO TOPIC)  The attorney is called to answer to the
court for his conduct as an officer of the
Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court explicitly court.
provides that proceedings for disbarment,  The complainant or the person who
suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken called the attention of the court to the
by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the IBP attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no
upon the verified complaint of any person. sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all
A. Accordingly, we held in Navarro v. Meneses good citizens may have in the proper
III, as reiterated in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, that: administration of justice.
The argument of respondent that complainant Prescinding therefrom, it is, therefore, immaterial
has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing. whether or not complainant herein was a party to
Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides the subject transaction.
that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension
or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the  In any event, complainant is actually a
Supreme Court motu propio or by the Integrated party-in-interest thereto because she is
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified mentioned as the treasurer of ISRC in the
complaint of any person. Memorandum of Agreement; as well as
one of the assignees in the Deed of
 The right to institute a disbarment Assignment of shares of ISRC stocks
proceeding is not confined to clients nor which respondent alleged to have
is it necessary that the person executed; and as the payee in the bank
complaining suffered injury from the check issued by the respondent for the
alleged wrongdoing. amount of ₱500,000.00.
 Disbarment proceedings are matters of
public interest and the only basis for 2. (RELATED TO PALE, BUT NOT THE TOPIC)
judgment is the proof or failure of proof
of the charges. The evidence submitted The complainant contends that pursuant to their
by complainant before the Commission agreement, she gave the amount of P500,000.00
on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its to the respondent to be used for the
resolution and recommended sanctions. reinstatement of ISRC’s recruitment license as well
as to start the business operation of the
B. The rationale was explained by us in Rayos- corporation. The respondent, however, claims
Ombac v. Rayos, viz: that complainant misinterpreted their agreement
because the ₱500,000.00 the latter gave him was
The rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary in payment of his personal shares of ISRC stock, as
proceedings. evidenced by a Deed of Assignment.
 A proceeding for suspension or The SC was constrained to give credence to the

disbarment is not in any sense a civil complainant’s contention.
action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a  The due execution and authenticity of
defendant. the MOA between the parties are
 Disciplinary proceedings involve no undisputed.
private interest and afford no redress for  Moreover, the terms thereof are clear
private grievance. and explicit that for and in consideration
 They are undertaken and prosecuted of the joint ownership of ISRC, the
solely for the public welfare. husband of the complainant, Mr. Khalifa
 They are undertaken for the purpose of Juma, would pay the amount of
preserving courts of justice from the ₱500,000.00, ₱250,000.00 of which would
official ministration of persons unfit to be used for the reinstatement of ISRC’s
practice in them. license, while the other ₱250,000.00 was
6|P a g e
for the start of the operation of the 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03) as well as his
corporation and to liquidate pending attorney’s oath.
government and other obligations, if
any. The aforecited canons emphasize the high
 Nowhere in said MOA is the alleged standard of honesty and fairness expected of a
assignment of shares mentioned. The lawyer not only in the practice of the legal
testimony of the complainant on this profession but in his personal dealings as well.
score is more credible than that of the
respondent because it conforms with  A lawyer must conduct himself with
the written stipulations in the MOA. great propriety, and his behavior should
 In contrast, the respondent’s be beyond reproach anywhere and at
explanations with respect to the all times.
₱500,000.00 in question had been  For, as officers of the courts and keepers
inconsistent. of the public’s faith, they are burdened
with the highest degree of social
Indeed, the deceit and misrepresentation responsibility and are thus mandated to
employed by the respondent was seemingly behave at all times in a manner
evident right at the outset when he entered into consistent with truth and honor.
the MOA concerning the joint ownership and  Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to
operation of ISRC with the complainant’s husband, impresses upon them the duty of
knowing fully well that he could not do so without exhibiting the highest degree of good
the consent of and/or authority from the faith, fairness and candor in their
corporation’s Board of Directors. relationships with others.
Moreover, while the respondent made it appear What is more, respondent is guilty of gross
in the MOA that the complainant would be misconduct for issuing a worthless check.
appointed treasurer and her husband Chairman
of the Board of ISRC, the respondent had not  Respondent issued a check but claimed
complied with the said undertaking as per the that it was only to guarantee the
Certification of the SEC. reimbursement of the ₱500,000.00 given
to him by the complainant in case of an
 The respondent could not justify his non- adverse decision in ISRC’s appeal with
compliance with the terms of the MOA the Office of the President.
by citing ISRC’s inability to comply with  However, that said check was issued
other governmental requirements for one year after the appeal adverted to
the reinstatement of its license for had already been favorably acted
various reasons, since the respondent upon. Hence, the check was issued only
failed to disclose the same to the after the complainant demanded the
complainant and her husband. return of their ₱500,000.00 investment in
ISRC. In any event, respondent’s act of
Particularly, the respondent failed to apprise the issuing a guarantee check for
complainant as to the true state of ISRC’s affairs ₱500,000.00, when he was presumably
that the reinstatement of the corporation’s aware that at the time of his issuance
recruitment license would require not only a thereof his bank account against which
favorable action by the Office of the President on the check was drawn was already
ISRC’s appeal and the payment of a surety bond, closed, clearly constitutes gross
but also ISRC’s clearance or exoneration in its misconduct for which he should be
other cases for recruitment violations pending with penalized.
the POEA.  In sum, the amount of ₱500,000.00 was
received by the respondent for the
In view of the foregoing, respondent has violated reinstatement of the license, but there is
the Code of Professional Responsibility (i.e. Canon no showing that it was used for such
purpose, as the respondent failed to
7|P a g e
give any credible accounting or Judge de la Cruz added that a certain
explanation as to the disbursement of Zenaida vda. de la Vega had also furnished him a
the said amount in accordance with the copy of her demand letter to respondent for the
stipulations in the MOA. return of ₱50,000 which the latter solicited for the
 He also admittedly issued a check issuance of a new owner’s copy of a transfer
drawn against a closed account, which certificate of title.
evinced his lack of intention to return the
money to the complainant pursuant to During the investigation, respondent
his supposed guarantee. It is thus proper admitted issuing the spurious court documents.
for the Court to order its restitution as After the hearings were concluded, Justice
recommended by the IBP. Quimbo found respondent guilty not only of grave
misconduct but also of dishonesty.
Penalty: SUSPENSION FOR ONE (1) YEAR and ONE
(1) MONTH from the practice of law with warning Issues:
that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit
a more severe penalty; and ordered to RESTITUTE Whether or not respondent is guilty for grave
the amount of ₱500,000.00 to the complainant. misconduct and dishonesty
TOPIC: AU TOM ATI C CON VERSI ON Ruling:
4, Dela Cruz v Atty. Luna In A.M. No. P-04-1821, respondent

improperly and brazenly clothed herself with
judicial authority by issuing a fake court judgment
Facts:
and order. There is a clear usurpation of a judicial
function when a person who is not a judge
This is a consolidated case against performs an act the authority for which has been
respondent Atty. Anna Liza M. Luna, clerk of court vested only upon a judge.
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Tagaytay City, She was also guilty of dishonesty, meaning "a
for grave misconduct and dishonesty for falsifying disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
court documents and for her failure to properly untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
account for court collections amounting to over probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
₱12 million. (AM No P-04-1281, ang covered sa straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
topic sa syllabus) deceive or betray."
In A.M. No. P-05-2018, this Court finds that
In A.M. No. P-04-1281, complainant Judge the cash shortage was respondent’s
Reuben de la Cruz, assisting judge of the RTC, accountability. As designated custodian of court
alleged that respondent issued a decision and an funds and properties, she was liable for any loss or
order making it appear that they were duly issued shortage thereof. (not part of the topic)
by the trial court. The following are: The court found that respondent is guilty
1. copy of the trial court order dated of grave misconduct and dishonesty both in A.M.
January 22, 2004 dismissing the No. A.M. No. P-04-1821 and A.M. No. P-05-2018. In
petition for the issuance of the both instances, the penalty of dismissal from
owner’s certificate of title in PET TG No. service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and
1050; disqualification from re-employment in any
branch of the government, including
2. copy of a fictitious judgment issued on government-owned or controlled corporations,
the same date in PET TG No. 1050; and, ought to be imposed.
3. copy of a certification dated March 9, The court, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-
2004 issued by respondent certifying to SC, deemed these administrative cases as
the effect that the fictitious judgment had disciplinary proceedings for disbarment as well.
already become final and executory. Respondent, as an attorney and officer of the
court, may be disbarred (or suspended) not only
for violation of her lawyer’s oath but also on the
8|P a g e
statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule Community Rural Bank of Guimba (Nueva Ecija).
138 of the Rules of Court, namely (1) deceit; (2) This was because, when the respondent was a
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office public prosecutor back then, he allegedly
and (3) grossly immoral conduct. committed certain improprieties and exceeded
Under the same rule, respondent "may his powers by overruling the Secretary of Justice in
forthwith be required to comment on the a reinvestigation he conducted. The OMB
complaint and show cause why (she) should not
dismissed the charges and denied the Motion for
also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
Reconsideration (MR) on March 24, 2004.
disciplinary sanctioned as member of the Bar."
Considering, however, that said comment is not
mandatory, that respondent has categorically
Court of Appeals (Petition for Review)
admitted that she falsified a court decision/order
and that the investigation of Justice Quimbo The CA held that it could not take cognizance of
showed her guilt beyond the shadow of doubt, we the criminal charges against the respondent. As to
are constrained to disbar her. the administrative aspect, the CA reversed and
set aside the decision and joint order of the OMB.
Dispositive portion: Also, it directed the OMB to file and prosecute the
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Anna Liza M. Luna is administrative charges against the respondent.
hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and
Dishonesty both in A.M. No. P-04-1821 and in A.M.
No. P-05-2018. Accordingly, she is Pending petition in the CA, the respondent was
(1) DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all interviewed several times in the JBC. He was then
retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re- appointed as RTC Judge. The complainant
employment in any branch of the government,
alleged that the respondent never informed the
including government-owned or controlled
JBC of his pending cases.
corporations; (2) DISBARRED from the practice of
law and (3) ORDERED to restitute the cash
shortage in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of
Complainant’s Comment
Tagaytay City, amounting to ₱12,085,831.61.
The respondent admitted that the complainant
had lodged criminal and administrative cases
5. Samson v Judge Caballero against him in the OMB. He, however, insisted that
these were already dismissed by virtue of the
Facts: immediately effective and executory March 24,
2004 decision of the OMB. Thus, there were
actually no more pending cases against him
An administrative complaint was filed by
during his interviews in the JBC. Also, he insisted
complainant Olga Samson (complainant) against
that he informed the JBC of the said cases.
respondent Judge Caballero (respondent) for
dishonesty and falsification of a public document.
To further support her charge of dishonesty
against the respondent, the complainant pointed
The complainant posited that the respondent,
to the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) filed by the
during his Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
respondent in the Office of Administrative
interviews for application as RTC Judge,
Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-
deliberately concealed the fact that there were
OCA) RTC Personnel Division. According to her,
pending administrative charges against him. The
the respondent categorically denied ever having
complainant revealed that, she filed criminal and
been charged formally with any infraction.
administrative charges for grave abuse of
authority, conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and violation of Article 208 of the
The OCA found the respondent administratively
Revised Penal Code against the respondent in the
liable for dishonesty and falsification of an official
Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) on behalf of
9|P a g e
document for his false statement in his PDS. It then This administrative case against the respondent
recommended the respondent's dismissal. shall also be considered as a disciplinary
proceeding against him as a member of the Bar,
pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC. This Resolution,
Issues: entitled "Re: Automatic Conversion of Some
1. Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court
for the administrative charges against him? of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of
1.1 If so, whether or not, “automatic Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials
conversion” applies? Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Them Both as Such Officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar," provides:
Ruling:
1. YES. The respondent is guilty of dishonesty
and falsification of an official document “Some administrative cases against Justices of the
and was dismissed from his service. Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges
of regular and special courts; and the court
officials who are lawyers are based on grounds
The Supreme Court (SC) held that, regardless of which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary
whether the respondent disclosed his pending action of members of the Bar for violation of the
cases during his interviews, the fact remains that Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
he committed dishonesty when he checked the Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
box indicating "No" to the question "Have you ever Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of
been formally charged?" in his PDS filed in the conduct that have been traditionally recognized
OAS-OCA RTC Personnel. He knew exactly what as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
the question called for and what it meant, and
that he was committing an act of dishonesty but
proceeded to do it anyway. To make matters In any of the foregoing instances, the
worse, he even sought to wriggle his way out of his administrative case shall also be considered a
predicament by insisting that the charges against disciplinary action against the respondent justice,
him were already dismissed, thus, his negative judge or court official concerned as a member of
answer in the PDS. However, whether or not the the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be required
charges were already dismissed was immaterial, to comment on the complaint and show cause
given the phraseology of the question "Have you why he should not also be suspended, disbarred
ever been formally charged?," meaning, charged or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member
at anytime in the past or present. of the Bar. Judgment in both respects may be
incorporated in one decision or resolution.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The respondent knew (or should have known) fully
well that the making of a false statement in his PDS
could subject him to dismissal. The SC will not allow Pursuant to the said Resolution, an administrative
him to evade the consequences of his dishonesty. case against a Judge of a regular court based on
Being a former public prosecutor and a judge grounds which are also grounds for the disciplinary
now, it is his duty to ensure that all the laws and action against members of the Bar shall be
rules of the land are followed to the letter. His automatically considered as disciplinary
dishonesty misled the JBC and tarnished the proceedings against such judge as a member of
image of the Judiciary. He deserved the harsh the Bar. This must be so as violation of the
penalty of dismissal from the service. fundamental tenets of judicial conduct
embodied in the new Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial
1.1 YES, automatic conversion applies.
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics
constitutes a breach of the Canons of the Code
10 | P a g e
of Professional Responsibility (CPR), namely image of the Judiciary, it also put his moral
Canons 1, 7, 10 and 11. character in serious doubt and rendered him unfit
to continue in the practice of law. Possession of
good moral character is not only a prerequisite to
In the case at hand, the respondent's dishonest admission to the bar but also a continuing
act was against the lawyer's oath to "do no requirement to the practice of law. The
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in requirement of good moral character is of much
court." Respondent's misconduct likewise greater import, as far as the general public is
constituted a contravention of Section 27, Rule concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
138 of the Rules of Court, which strictly enjoins a
lawyer from committing acts of deceit, otherwise,
he may be suspended or disbarred. Hence, the SC ordered for the respondent’s
DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all
benefits and privileges, except accrued leave
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, a respondent credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in
"may forthwith be required to comment on the any branch or instrumentality of the government,
complaint and show cause why he should not also including government-owned or controlled
be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary corporations.
sanctioned as member of the Bar." The rule does
not make it mandatory, before the respondent
may be held liable as a member of the Bar, that The respondent is likewise DISBARRED for violation
the respondent be required to comment on and of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of
show cause why he should not be disciplinary the Code of Professional Responsibility and his
sanctioned as a lawyer separately from the order name STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
for him to comment on why he should not be held
administratively liable as a member of the bench.
6. Judge Angeles v Judge Sempio Diy
In other words, an order to comment on the

complaint is an order to give an explanation on Facts:
why he should not be held administratively liable
not only as a member of the bench but also as a This is an administrative complaint for
member of the bar. This is the fair and reasonable disbarment and dismissal from judiciary
meaning of "automatic conversion" of service filed by complainant, Judge Angeles,
administrative cases against justices and judges to against respondent, Judge Sempio Diy,
disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers. Presiding Judge of the RTC of Quezon
This will also serve the purpose of A.M. No. 02-9-02- City,which stemmed from consolidated
SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-
replication of actions by treating an administrative 62690 entitled "People v. Proclyn
complaint filed against a member of the bench Pacay" and "People v. P/Insp. Roberto
also as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a Ganias," respectively.
lawyer by mere operation of the rule. Thus, a Complainant Judge Angeles alleges
disciplinary proceeding as a member of the bar that the above-mentioned cases were
is impliedly instituted with the filing of an submitted for the decision of Judge Sempio-
administrative case against a justice of the Diy dated 20 June 2008, and the
Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and Court of promulgation of judgment was set for 11
Tax Appeals or a judge of a first - or second-level September 2008. In a subsequent Order
court. dated 8 September 2008, respondent Judge
Sempio-Diy moved the promulgation of
judgment to 17 September 2008, for the
As in this case, it cannot be denied that the
reason that she had a previously scheduled
respondent's dishonesty did not only affect the
11 | P a g e
medical consultation concerning a neck scheduled promulgation; (2) the neck
ailment. Thereafter, the promulgation of ailment was not as serious as it was made to
judgment on 17 September 2008 was appear because respondent Judge Sempio-
cancelled and reset to 17 October 2008, with Diy was able to travel abroad to attend a
respondent Judge Sempio-Diy citing symposium; and (3) the claim that she
voluminous case records and health problems needed time to study the voluminous case
as grounds to support her request before the records is not a valid excuse because
Court of a thirty (30)-day extension. IcADSE respondent Judge Sempio-Diy found time to
travel abroad instead of attending to her
On 17 October 2008, the
pending cases.
promulgation of judgment was once again
cancelled and reset to 14 November 2008 on In fine, complainant Judge Angeles is
account of a second request for extension of adamant in her contention that the Joint
time based on the ground that respondent Decision in the subject criminal cases was
Judge Sempio-Diy had just recently arrived rendered way beyond the 90-day period
from a trip to the United States where she prescribed by the Constitution. In addition,
attended a symposium on religious freedom. complainant Judge Angeles raises another
Following a third request for extension of time, instance where respondent Judge Sempio-
the promulgation of judgment was reset for Diy is supposed to have incurred unjustifiable
the last time to 12 December 2008. delay.
Finally, the Joint Decision in the As it happened, convicted accused

subject criminal cases was promulgated on 12 SPO1 Roberto C. Carino assailed the Joint
December 2008, wherein all the accused, Decision by filing an Urgent Motion for
except for accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carino, Reconsideration on 5 January 2009, which the
were acquitted. To complainant prosecution countered in its Opposition filed
Judge Angeles, the said Decision was on 14 January 2009. However, it was not until
belatedly rendered because there was a 30 July 2009, or more than six (6) months later,
lapse of six (6) months from the time it was that respondent Judge Sempio-Diy issued an
submitted for resolution to the time it was Order submitting the incident for resolution, "it
promulgated. She further avers that her appearing that the accused through counsel
personal examination of the case records has failed to file the necessary pleading
revealed that no requests for extension of time despite the period given by the Court." Less
to decide the subject cases were made by than a month later, or on 24 August 2009,
respondent Judge Sempio-Diy. Likewise, she respondent Judge Sempio-Diy resolved the
notes that the case records do not show that pending matter by denying the Urgent Motion
requests for extension of time, if any had for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Despite
indeed been made by respondent Judge the denial of the said Urgent Motion for
Sempio-Diy, were granted by the Supreme Reconsideration, things did not sit well for
Court. It is her opinion that such requests and complainant Judge Angeles. For her, the
Resolutions of the Supreme Court granting the Resolution dated 24 August 2009 was
same should be made integral parts of the belatedly issued by respondent Judge
case records. Sempio-Diy.
As for the reasons proffered by By failing to decide/resolve the

respondent Judge Sempio-Diy for the subject cases and the urgent motion for
repeated cancellation and resetting of the reconsideration within the period mandated
dates for promulgation of judgment, by law and jurisprudence, as well as in
complainant Judge Angeles argues falsifying official documents, complainant
that: (1) respondent Judge Sempio-Diy's Judge Angeles now stresses, respondent
medical check-up could have been done on Judge Sempio-Diy violated the pertinent
any other day that would not conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, New Code of
12 | P a g e
Judicial Conduct, Code of Judicial In its evaluation, the OCA found that
Ethics, Code of Professional Responsibility, Judge Sempio Diy cannot be held guilty of
and the Code of Conduct and Ethical unreasonable delay in rendering the Joint
Standards for Public Officials. Decision in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294
and Q-95-62690 given her seasonably-filed
For her part, respondent Judge
requests for extension of time. The requests
Sempio-Diy belies the accusations hurled at
were all granted by this Court in the
her by complainant Judge Angeles in the
November 24, 2008 Resolution, giving
latter's COMPLAINT. In her COMMENT dated 2
respondent a total extension period of ninety
December 2009, respondent Judge Sempio-
(90) days from September 18, 2008. The OCA,
Diy counters that she decided the subject
however, opined that respondent should be
cases in due time and within the extended
administratively sanctioned for incurring delay
period granted by the Supreme Court. She
in the resolution of accused Carino's Urgent
maintains that the orders resetting the
Motion for Reconsideration. HSIAD
promulgation of judgment were issued in
good faith and in the interest of full The OCA recommended that the
transparency, pursuant to her request to case be re-docketed as a regular
decide the subject cases expeditiously. administrative matter against Judge
Sempio Diy and that she be fined in the
For starters, she notes that she merely
amount of P2,000.00 for her delayed action
inherited the subject cases which had already
on a motion for reconsideration with a stern
been previously handled by three (3) other
warning that a repetition of the same or similar
judges from the time they were filed in 1995.
act would be dealt with more severely.
Thus, the case records were voluminous.
For another, the first resetting of the

promulgation of judgment from 11 September Issues:
to 17 September 2008 was occasioned by her
1.Whether the findings of the OCA are correct.
illness, which assertion she substantiated by
way of a Medical Certificate. She points out
that the setting of the promulgation of
judgment on 17 September 2008 is still within 2. Whether the administrative case against Judge
the Constitutionally-prescribed 90-day period Sempio Diy shall also be considered a disciplinary
for deciding the subject cases. proceeding against her as a member of the bar
pursuant to automatic conversion.
Respondent Judge Sempio-
Diy likewise attributes the inadvertent delay to Ruling:
the "unfortunate crises" that befell her, her
mother, and the court's personnel sometime 1. YES with some modifications.
in May to July of 2009. She reported to the After a judicious review of the records
Office of the Court Administrator that they of the case, this Court determines that the
received a series of death threats which findings of the OCA are well-taken. However,
caused, among others, disorientation. Thus, it We modify the recommended disposition in light
was only on 30 July 2009, after the semi- of the circumstances of the case.
annual inventory, that an Order submitting the
matter for resolution was issued. She stresses The Court finds no evidence to sustain
that the incident was resolved within thirty (30) the charges of delay against Judge
days from its submission. As for Sempio Diy in rendering the Joint Decision in
the "snowpaked" correction of the date of the the consolidated Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-
said Order, she avers that this was simply due 61294 and Q-95-62690.
to a typographical error. Records reveal that Judge
Sempio Diy timely sought for three successive
extensions of the period to decide the
13 | P a g e
consolidated criminal cases. All requests were requiring judges to perform all judicial duties
favorably considered by this efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
Court. Respondent was granted a total promptness.
extension period of ninety (90) days to be
A careful perusal of the transcript of
reckoned from September 18, 2008 or until
stenographic notes and the Minutes of the
December 18, 2008. So, the promulgation of
hearing held on January 29, 2009 in Criminal
Joint Decision on December 12, 2008 was
Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690, would
made well within the 90-day extension period.
clearly show that respondent indeed gave
Complainant should have first verified the
the defense ten (10) days to submit its reply to
veracity and accuracy of her allegations from
the prosecution's comment on the motion for
the records of Branch 225, this Court and the
reconsideration and, thereafter, she would
OCA, before hurling accusations of
resolve all pending incidents in said
dishonesty and slothful conduct against
consolidated cases. As correctly observed by
respondent. Truly, respondent was charged
the OCA, the reglementary period to resolve
with a litany of imagined sins relative to her
the motion in question began to run from
alleged undue delay in deciding the subject
February 8, 2009 or after the lapse of ten days
consolidated criminal cases without sufficient
from January 29, 2009. Respondent, however,
proof.
did not act on the matter and allowed a
We hold, however, that there was hiatus in the consolidated criminal cases. A
indeed delay in resolving accused Carino's judge cannot choose to prolong the period
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed on for resolving pending incidents and deciding
January 5, 2009. cases beyond the period authorized by law.
Let it be underscored that it is the sworn duty
Respondent Judge
of judges to administer justice without undue
Sempio Diy claims that the delay in submitting
delay under the time-honored precept that
accused's motion for reconsideration was due
justice delayed is justice denied. Judges
to inadvertence and without bad faith on her
should act with dispatch in resolving pending
part. She explains that she opted to wait for
incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the
the defense to file its reply to the prosecution's
satisfaction of a judgment.
comment on the motion for reconsideration
because the offense of which accused was Judge Sempio Diy, having been a
convicted was serious and his liberty was at member of the judiciary for several years,
stake. She adds that the death threats she should not have any trouble disposing the
and the members of her judicial staff received court's business and resolving motions for
from May to July 2009, caused them reconsideration within the required period.
disorientation and contributed further to the Otherwise, she should formally request this
delay in the resolution of the subject motion. Court for an extension of the deadline to
She readily admits that it was only after the avoid administrative liability. Unfortunately,
semi-annual inventory that the pending she failed to do that in these cases. Delay in
incidents in the consolidated criminal cases resolving motions and incidents within the
were considered submitted for resolution in reglementary period of 90 days fixed by the
the July 30, 2009 Order. law cannot be excused or condoned.
Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Respondent's claim of death threats

Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to on her and her staff, even if real, would not
dispose of the court's business promptly and constitute a valid excuse for her inaction.
decide cases within the period specified in After all, as member of the judiciary, she must
Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of display diligence and competence amid all
the Constitution. This is supplemented by adversities to live up to her oath of office.
Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Besides, when said threats were received from
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, May to July 2009, the three-month mandatory
14 | P a g e
period for resolving the motion had already offending acts or omissions of the judges, as
expired. Accordingly, respondent cannot rely well as previous transgressions, if any. In the
on said predicament to exonerate her from instant case, there is no evidence to show any
administrative liability for incurring undue dubious reason or improper motive that could
delay in resolving the subject motion. have compelled respondent to delay the
Although it is true that Judge resolution of the subject motion. In fact, when
Sempio Diy finally issued a resolution denying respondent found out about the unresolved
accused Carino's motion for reconsideration subject motion in the consolidated cases, she
on August 24, 2009 or within 30 days from the immediately ordered its submission for
time the incident was submitted for resolution resolution on July 30, 2009. In the absence of
on July 30, 2009, her inaction on the motion for malice, the delay could only be due to
more than 6 months is not excused. inadvertence. It is significant to note that
respondent resolved the motion within thirty
It appears that respondent has simply
days from its submission date which clearly
forgotten about the pending motion for
showed her effort to zealously attend to her
reconsideration in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-
duties. Lastly, it appears that this is her first
61294 and Q-95-62690 after said cases
infraction and the first time for her to face an
became inactive due to the failure of the
administrative complaint of this kind.
defense to submit its reply. The realization of
the blunder came only during the semi- Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules
annual inventory of the court's cases. This of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision
situation could have been avoided had or order constitutes a less serious charge
respondent adopted an effective system of punishable by either suspension from office
record management and organization of without salary and other benefits for not less
dockets to monitor the flow of cases for than one month nor more than three months
prompt and efficient dispatch of the court's or a fine of not more than P10,000.00 but not
business. Elementary court management exceeding P20,000.00. However, considering
practice requires her to keep her own records that this is her first infraction due to
or notes of cases pending before her sala, inadvertence, We believe that admonition
especially those that are pending for more will suffice.
than 90 days, so that she can act on them
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Maria
promptly and without delay.
Elisa Sempio Diy is found to have been in
The Court reminds the respondent of delay in the rendition of an order in Criminal
her duty to closely supervise and monitor the Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690 and is
monthly docket inventories to forestall future hereby ADMONISHED to be more
occurrences of this nature. circumspect in observing the reglementary
period for disposing of motions.
2. YES
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC

(Automatic Conversion) , this administrative TOPIC: DUE PROCESS
case against respondent shall also be
considered a disciplinary proceeding against
her as a member of the bar. Being an official 7. Rodil v Corro, Et.Al.
of the government, she must also be subject
to disciplinary proceeding as all members of Facts:
the bar must be disciplined in a manner
provided by law. (No violation of Due Process)
In determining the sanction to be Dr. Rodil alleged that Atty. Corro received PhP10
imposed on errant magistrates, the Court Million for drafting a decision intended for the
considers the factual milieu of each case, the
15 | P a g e
acquittal of a litigant whose case was pending Atty. Aguinaldo alleged that Dr. Rodil deceived
before the Supreme Court. them when he assured them that an acquittal will
be granted to Alejandro. They paid 10M to Dr.
Atty. Corro was formerly detailed as a Court Rodil who solely transacted with Atty. Corro,
Attorney at the Office of then SC Associate Justice Ancheta and Posadas.
Villarama. Dr. Rodil averred that his friend, Atty.
Ramel Aguinaldo asked him if he had any Posadas testified that, Dr. Rodil ask her if she knew
connection with the Supreme Court who could anyone who could help his lawyer friend (Atty.
help his client (Alejandro) who had a pending Aguinaldo), Posadas contacted Ancheta, who in
criminal case in the SC. turn contacted Atty. Corro. He also testified that
she gave to Ancheta the money given by Dr. Rodil
In view of this, Dr. Rodil contacted the assistance who in turn handed it over to Atty. Corro.
of Posadas, Records Officer II in the CA, and
Ancheta, Jr. Records Officer III of the SC, who Ancheta for his part, testified that since Posadas is
purportedly both facilitated the alleged his friend, he approached his friend, Atty. Corro,
transactions with Atty. Corro. Dr. Rodil was to review the case and gave the documents to
informed that the case was raffled to the him. Atty. Corro informed Ancheta that he could
Associate Justice Villarama. secure a favorable decision but at a huge price
of P10 Million. Ancheta admitted that he handed
Eventually, in exchange for a favorable decision over the cash to Atty. Corro and that he
acquitting Alejandro, Atty. Corro allegedly asked introduced Dr. Rodil to Atty. Corro in the latter part
for 10,000,000.00 (10M) in 4 payments of of the transactions. Atty. Corro handed over to
installments. Ancheta the sealed envelope purportedly
containing an advanced copy of the decision for
Afterwards, Atty. Corro supposedly gave Ancheta
Alejandro's acquittal.
the advanced copy of the decision in said case.
However, Dr. Rodil later discovered that it was After the complaint was filed against Atty. Corro,
actually fake after he requested an official copy he was given several opportunities to present his
of the decision in the Reporters Office of the side but he failed to personally appear. The OBC
Supreme Court. believed that Atty. Corro did not have any
intention to personally appear in any of the
He subsequently learned that Atty. Corro had
proceedings, it deemed it best to submit a report
already resigned from the Supreme Court. This
on Atty. Corro’s case.
prompted Dr. Rodil to file a complaint against
Atty. Corro. Report and Recommendation of the OBC
During hearing, Atty. Corro failed to appear The OBC limited itself to Atty. Corro's case since
despite notice. Dr. Rodil, testified that Atty. Ancheta and Posadas’ case should be referred to
Aguinaldo appropriated for himself the 11,294 the Office of Administrative Services of the SC and
sqm property titled to Dr. Rodil's daughter. (Here, CA.
ganahan kwaun balik nila Atty. Aguinaldo and
10M nga gihatag kang Dr. Rodil pang bribe kay OBC found that Atty. Corro vehemently
peke ang advanced decision mao napugus si disrespected the lawful orders of the Court by
Rodil ihatag ang title sa yuta sa iyang anak). ignoring its series of resolution. Instead of filing a
comment, Atty. Corro found time in filing
Dr. Rodil initiated the complaint against Atty. manifestations and ways to question the Court's
Corro in order to retrieve the title of the lot which processes. He even employed delaying tactics
he was forced to surrender to Atty. Aguinaldo for and treated the process server of the Court with
supposed safe keeping. Dr. Rodil asserted that he disrespect. Atty. Corro's acts constitute as willful
exchanged several text messages with Atty. disobedience tantamount to gross misconduct
Corro.. and insubordination to the lawful orders of the
16 | P a g e
Court which rendered him morally unfit to hearings or to at least make efforts to personally
continue to become a member of the Bar. secure copies of the records.
OBC ruled that Atty. Corro violated the Lawyer's However, Atty. Corro conjured up numerous
Oath as well as Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR for excuses so as not to set foot in the Supreme Court
repeatedly ignored court directives despite premises, and even enlisted the help of other
notice. More importantly, it held that Atty. Corro individuals (whose reputations he also jeopardized
violated the law against bribery, graft and by being associated with him) to acquire the
corruption. The OBC recommended Atty. Corro documents he needed instead of doing it himself.
be disbarred from the practice of law.
If it was truly important for him to clear his name,
then he should have pulled out all the stops to
Issue:
speedily dispose or dismiss the instant case against
him on the merits. In fact, the Court is under the
WON Atty. Corro was denied of due process.
impression that Atty. Corro deliberately acted in
such a way in order to show a semblance of lack
Ruling: of due process so that he could invoke it as a
defense, when in actuality he was not denied such
NO. right.
Atty. Corro received the full amount of The Court will not be lured into such a deception
(PhP10,000,00.00) from Dr. Rodil (funded by the and will not countenance such a reprehensible
family of Alejandro) in exchange for a favorable act by an officer of the court.
decision of acquittal for Alejandro. This
undeniable fact warrants Atty. Corro's disbarment Atty. Corro harped on the instance that he was
since he is guilty of gross misconduct as well as supposedly not allowed to procure a copy of his
grossly immoral conduct for committing such alleged text messages with Dr. Rodil. Yet, Atty.
reprehensible acts. His additional infractions in Corro also stated that such text messages could
ignoring and disrespecting lawful issuances or have been tampered with due to the advances
orders from the Court only added to the reasons in technology. Even so, Atty. Corro should
why he should no longer be given the privilege to remember that he was given the opportunity to
practice law or to be a member of the Bar. He apprise himself regarding the incidents of his case
violated Canons 1 (Rule 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3), Canon 7 but he chose to disregard such chance. Atty.
(Rule 7.03) and canon 10 (Rule 10.01). Corro would still be found liable even without a
copy of the said text messages. In other words, the
Atty. Corro merely rebutted Ancheta's assertions existence of such "proof" is not indispensable to
with general statements. Atty. Corro could have the case at bench.
easily refuted these assertions with particular
instances or explanations, yet he chose not to As for Atty. Corro's attempts to display his
submit any substantial document to explain his character by submitting his performance
side or to at least attend the hearings.. evaluation forms, his application to become a
judge or his clearance 35 from the Court after he
ISSUE ON DUE PROCESS resigned, We 6nd that these are not conclusive to
show that he is not guilty of the accusations
He conveniently forgot that the Court gave him
against him. It is common sense to know that a
the clearance or permission to procure a copy of
person's true character cannot be determined
the letter-complaint of Dr. Rodil against him; that
solely by such evaluations and documents.
he was well-represented by counsel during the
hearings; and that he received notices from the Considering these findings, Section 30, Rule 138 of
Court which he could have clarified or inquired the Rules of Court provides that:
further into if he only bothered to show up to the
17 | P a g e
Section 30. Attorney to be heard before Private Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton).
removal or suspension. — No attorney Philippine Authorities maintained that until a case
shall be removed or suspended from the was filed against Pemberton, custody over him
practice of his profession, until he has had remained with the USA.
full opportunity upon reasonable notice
to answer the charges against him, to On October 22, 2014, news broke out that
produce witnesses in his own behalf, and Pemberton had been flown into Camp
to be heard by himself or counsel. But if Aguinaldo, in the premises of the Mutual Defense
upon reasonable notice he fails to Board-Security Engagement Board (MDB-SEB).
appear and answer the accusation, the
Respondents alleged that petitioner Roque Jr.
court may proceed to determine the
(petitioner), with his clients forced their way inside
matter ex parte.
the premises of MDB-SEB and gained entry despite
He consistently and continuously ignored and the Military Police personnel’s instruction not to
disrespected the Court when he failed to attend enter the compound and even though the gates
the hearings despite notice, which to Our mind, were closed.
would have been the best avenue to clear his
Petitioner allegedly fomented disorder by inciting
name if he is truly blameless.
his clients to scale the perimeter fence, to see
Notwithstanding his choice not to attend the said Pemberton. These events are of public
hearings or to file the appropriate pleadings or knowledge, having been subject of various
responses to the accusations against him, he had national television, radio, internet, and print media
the gall to accuse the Court of not affording him publications.
due process, even when every opportunity was
In response to these events, respondents released
already provided to him.
a press statement that they were considering filing
He had his own counsel who represented him in disbarment proceedings against petitioner. The
the proceedings. Thus, the Court finds that he has said statement was quoted by the Philippine Daily
had the full opportunity to defend himself, and that Inquirer, which also quoted Petitioner’s twitter
because of his own negligence or calculated account saying he was looking forward to
maneuvers, he has waived his right to be heard. If responding to AFP’s complaint.
Atty. Corro truly valued his standing in the legal
Similarly, the Philippine Star reported that AFP will
profession, he would have exerted every effort to
proceed with disbarment case vs. Laude’s lawyer.
keep his name untarnished and not disregarded
the Court's issuances.
On November 3, 2014, Sun Star reported that AFP
formally filed a disbarment case against Harry
The Court rules that the acts of Atty. Corro are "so
Roque, the lawyer of the slain transgender Filipino
reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are so
Jennifer Laude before the IBP.
Lagrant, exhibiting his moral un6tness and inability
to discharge his duties as a member of the Bar. His
On November 4, 2014 respondent Cabunoc
actions erode rather than enhance the public
called a conference at Camp Aguinaldo, and
perception of the legal profession."
publicly announced that a disbarment complaint
had been filed against petitioner. Respondent
DISBARRED.
Cabunoc also distributed a press statement,
which reads:
TOPIC: CONFI DENTI ALI TY RULE
8. Roque, jr v Catapang Press Statement: AFP files disbarment complaint
against Atty. Harry Roque.
Facts:
Petitioner alleges that this press statement was
Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude (Laude) was allegedly reported on, and generously quoted from, by
killed at a motel in Olongopo City by US Marine media. He asserts that respondents' acts are
18 | P a g e
contumacious violations of Section 18, Rule 139-B The confidentiality rule requires only that
of the Rules of Court. Further, he claims that "proceedings against attorneys" be kept private
respondents' acts put to question his professional and confidential. This would necessarily prohibit
and personal reputation. the distribution of actual disbarment complaints to
the press. However, the rule does not extend so far
Respondents argues that the press statements are that it covers the mere existence or pendency of
not among the contumacious acts prescribed disciplinary actions.
under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. That
they instituted the disbarment complaint against Given the circumstances of this case, citing
petitioner in good faith and that they are laymen, respondents in contempt would be an
and are not familiar with the confidentiality rule. unreasonable exercise of this Court's contempt
power.
Issue:
Petitioner assails two acts as violating the
WON respondents’ public pronouncements confidentiality rule:
violate Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
and thus, respondent must be cited in contempt 1. Respondents’ supposed public threats of
of court. filing a disbarment case against him, and
2. Respondents' public statement that they
Ruling: had filed a disbarment complaint.
Where there are yet no proceedings against a

NO.
lawyer, there is nothing to keep private and
Disbarment proceedings are covered by the confidential. Respondents' threats were made
confidentiality rule. before November 4, 2014, and there was no
proceeding to keep private.
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
provides: The Press Statement declared only three (3) things:
Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against 1. respondent AFP filed a disbarment

attorneys shall be private and confidential. complaint against petitioner;
However, the final order of the Supreme Court 2. petitioner is a lawyer, and thus, must
conduct himself according to the
shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
standards of the legal profession; and
Lawyers are held to high standards as officers of 3. petitioner's "unlawful conduct" is
prohibited by the Code of Professional
the court, and subject to heightened regulation to
Responsibility.
ensure that the legal profession maintains its
integrity and esteem. The Press Statement's coverage of the disbarment
complaint was a brief, unembellished report that
The confidentiality rule is intended, to prevent the
a complaint had been filed. Such an
use of disbarment proceedings as a tool to announcement does not, in and of itself, violate
damage a lawyer's reputation in the public
the confidentiality rule, particularly considering
sphere. Thus, the general rule is that publicly
that it did not discuss the disbarment complaint
disclosing disbarment proceedings may be
itself.
punished with contempt.
In any case, the Press Statement does not divulge
However, the confidentiality in disciplinary actions
any acts or character traits on the part of
for lawyers is not absolute. It is not to be applied
petitioner that would damage his personal and
under any circumstance, to all disclosures of any
professional reputation. No particulars were given
nature. In disbarment proceedings, a balance
about the content of the complaint or the actual
must be struck, due to the demands of the legal charges filed.
profession.
19 | P a g e
Furthermore, prior to the filing of the complaint, secure individual titles over these parcels of land
petitioner even made his own public statement in the names of 7 fictitious persons
regarding respondents' possible filing of a Respondent knows this fact. Later on, Lilia and
disbarment complaint. Even before any case Concepcion decided to sell the subject parcels of
against him had been filed, media reported that land because they needed money for their
petitioner tweeted publicly that he looked medication and other necessary expenses.
Respondent borrowed the seven land titles from
forward to answering the complaint before the
complainants and told them that he would help
AFP.
them sell the properties. Despite the lapse
Thus, the SC agrees with respondents, that they of one year from the time he borrowed the titles,
respondent still failed to negotiate the sale of the
should not be faulted for releasing a subsequent
property. He informed herein complainants that
press statement regarding the disbarment
he lost all the seven land titles. Respondent then
complaint they filed against petitioner. The
advised complainants to file a petition in court for
statements were official statements made in the
re-issuance of title. Lilia, in the guise of acting
performance of respondents' official functions to as the “authorized agentrepresentative” of the
address a matter of public concern. It was the fictitious owners, filed a case for the reissuance of
publication of an institutional action in response to title to the seven parcels of land. However, the
a serious breach of security. Respondents, in the public prosecutor noticed that the signatures of
exercise of their public functions, should not be the alleged owners in the seven SPAs appear to
punished for responding publicly to such public have been signed by the same person because
actions. of the similarities in their strokes. The public
prosecutor informed the trial court and the trial
Hence, petition is denied. court summoned the alleged principals. Lilia
withdrew the case to avoid embarrassment and
TOPIC: FORM AL I NVESTI GATI ON AS possible sanctions. Subsequently, Lilia filed a new
M ANDATOR Y REQUI REM EN T set of cases for re-issuance of title, changing the
signatures of the fictitious owners. When
9. Tabang v Gacott respondent knew that a new set of case was filed,
he executed or caused to be executed several
Facts:
documents, among which were Revocation of
Complainants, Lilia Tabang (Lilia) and her mother, Special Power of Attorney and Affidavits of
Recovery purportedly signed by the principals of
Concepcion Tabang, filed before the Integrated
Lilia. Respondent caused the publication of a
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a verified complaint for
notice representing himself as the owner of the
disbarment or suspension against respondent Atty.
subject parcels of land and indicating therein his
Glenn C. Gacott for gross misconduct, deceit and
desire to sell the said properties. Respondent was
gross dishonesty. Sometime between 1984 able to sell the seven parcels of land to seven
and 1985, Lilia sought the legal advice of then individuals. However, only three of these buyers
incumbent Judge Eustaquio Gacott, father of were legitimate, while the remaining four are
herein respondent, regarding her desire to buy a dummies of respondent. Complainants
30hectare agricultural land. Judge Gacott contend that in executing the various revocation
informed Lilia that under the agrarian reform of the SPAs and affixing thereon the signatures of
program of the government, she is prohibited from the fictitious owners and in arrogating the
acquiring vast tracts of agricultural land, as she ownership of the properties, respondent
already owns other parcels of land. Judge Gacott committed gross misconduct, dishonesty and
then advised her to put the title of the lands in the deceit. Respondent filed his Answer to the
names of Complaint denying the material allegations of the
complainants. He claims that the seven land titles
covering the subject properties are valid and duly
fictitious persons and to keep the titles with her for
executed; and denies complainants' allegations
easy disposition. Following the advice of
that the alleged owners are fictitious. IBP
Judge Gacott, Lilia bought the parcels of land
Commissioner found respondent guilty and
using fictitious names. Eventually, Lilia was able to
20 | P a g e
recommended that respondent be suspended show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The
from the IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the
practice of law for six months. The Board of procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before
Governors of the IBP adopted the report but the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as
modified the recommended penalty to practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days
disbarment. from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board
of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15)
Issue:
days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations, which shall forthwith be
Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of gross
misconduct, dishonesty and deceit transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
Ruling: In the present case, the Investigating

Commissioner initiated the formal investigation by
The case should be remanded for further conducting a mandatory conference between
proceedings. A lawyer may be disbarred or the complainants and the respondent after both
suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent parties have filed their complaint and answer,
disregard of his duties, or an odious deportment respectively. The mandatory conference was
unbecoming an attorney. The power to supposedly held for the purpose of de�ng the
disbar must be exercised with great caution. issues and enabling the parties to stipulate facts.
Considering the serious consequences of the However, no definitive result was reached during
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the conference as respondent continued to deny
the Supreme Court has consistently held that
all the allegations of the complainants. After the
clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to
mandatory conference was held, no further
justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
hearings were conducted. Instead, the
In complaints for disbarment, a formal
Investigating Commissioner merely required the
investigation is a mandatory requirement which
may not be dispensed with except for valid and parties to submit their respective position papers,
compelling reasons. Rule 139-B provides for the including all the necessary documents and duly
procedure of investigation in disbarment and verified affidavits of witnesses, if any. On the sole
disciplinary proceedings against attorneys before basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and of
the IBP, thus: Sec. 8. Investigation. — Upon the documents attached thereto, the
joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent Investigating Commissioner submitted her Report
to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate and Recommendation to the IBP Board of
speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. Governors. The Investigating Commissioner
He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and should not have simply relied on the parties'
administer oaths. The respondent shall be given position papers and the pieces of documentary
full opportunity to defend himself, to present evidence submitted by them. She should have
witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself
proceeded with the investigation by conducting
and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice,
formal hearings and calling upon the parties to
the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
present additional evidence to support their
shall proceed ex parte. The Investigator shall
respective contentions. In the case of the
terminate the investigation within three (3) months
from the date of its commencement, unless complainants, the Investigating Commissioner
extended for good cause by the Board of should have required the presentation of the
Governors upon prior application. Willful persons who allegedly executed the affidavits
failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other presented in evidence to prove the veracity of the
lawful order issued by the Investigator shall be allegations contained in said affidavits, at the
dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The same time affording respondent the opportunity
corresponding charge shall be filed by the to crossexamine the supposed affiants. The failure
Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors of the complainants to move for the presentation
which shall require the alleged contemnor to of the persons alleged to have executed the
21 | P a g e
subject affidavits does not render the IBP the Investigating Commissioner did not conduct
powerless to conduct further investigation, any hearing to determine the veracity of the
considering its power to issue subpoena under the allegations in Villanueva’s Complaint and the
Rule. Consequently, no judgment could be truthfulness of Atty. Deloria’s answers thereto.
rendered fairly and squarely on the issues raised in
the subject administrative matter.
Issue:
10. Villanueva v Deloria WON the case can be decided without formal
investigation.
Facts:
This disbarment case was filed by Rogelio

Ruling:
Villanueva against Atty. Amado Deloria in
connection with HLURB case De Gracia v. Estate NO. A formal investigation is a mandatory
of Jaime Gonzales. Deloria, a former full-time requirement which may not be dispensed with
Commissioner of the HLURB, appeared as counsel except for valid and compelling reasons. The SC
for the spouses De Gracia. The case was rendered held in a case that complaints against lawyers for
in favor of De Gracia requiring the Estate of Jaime misconduct are normally addressed to the Court.
to refund the former the amount of P69,000.00 plus If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be
interest at the prevailing commercial interest clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the
rates. The case was eventually assigned to case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary
Villanueva upon designation as Arbiter. that further inquiry should be made, such as when
the matter could not be resolved by merely
evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is
Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of
made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the
Substitute Judgment and for Consignation
case during which the parties are accorded an
claiming that the Estate of Jaime Gonzales does
opportunity to be heard. An ex-parte investigation
not want to pay the interest based on commercial
may only be conducted when respondent fails to
interest rates. This was denied by Villanueva
appear despite reasonable notice.
asserting that the Estate of Jaime merely seek to
clarify the precise interest rate applicable to it to
fully comply with the decision. Villanueva alleged Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides
that the following acts of Deloria’s are in violation the procedure for investigation in disbarment and
of the CPR: disciplinary proceedings against attorneys before
- Sought substitution of a decision the IBP (see provision – too long to copy). In the
which he knew had already become case, we find that due observance of the
final and partially executed foregoing rules is necessary for the proper
- Commingled his funds with those of resolution of this case. SC remanded the case to
his clients. the IBP for further proceedings.
- Used his influence as former HLURB
Commissioner to prevent Villanueva
from denying his motion
TOPIC: BURDEN OF PRO OF AND
- Offered Villanueva 50% of the
PROCEEDI NGS AS SUI GENERI S
recoverable amount in the case he
resolves the motion favorably 11. Arienda v Aguila
Facts:
The Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Deloria be suspended This is an administrative case for disbarment filed
for 2 years, but was annulled by the IBP and by complainant Arienda against respondent Atty.
dismissed the case for lack of merit. It appears that Aguila, charging respondent with deceit,
22 | P a g e
misconduct, and use of a falsified public  In her Verified Opposition, Elisa did not
document. assert the legitimacy of her
relationship/cohabitation with the
Complainant Arienda, filed a Petition for Letters of decedent as she merely alleged that
Administration for the Intestate Estate of her late she was made to believe by the latter
father, Ernesto Arienda before the RTC. This that he was single when they got
petition was opposed by Elisa Menes-Arienda, a married and were blessed with a
common-law wife of the decedent. Elisa is daughter, named Ernessa.
represented by Atty. Porfirio Aguila, herein
respondent. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commissioner: Recommended that the case be
Specific allegations of the complainant’s Affidavit DISMISSED, since respondent did not commit any
of Complaint: act for which he should be disciplined or
administratively sanctioned.
 Atty. Porfirio Aguila has made the
settlement of the decedent’s estate  Respondent, Atty. Aguila, is the legal
complicated by filing the opposition to counsel of Elisa Menes. As such, Atty.
the letter of administration. Aguila would have every right to take
 Atty. Aguila favors "the mistress" of the every legal action in the interest of his
decedent instead of being "in between client.
the 3 parties."  In this case, filing an opposition to the
 Atty. Aguila used a falsified marriage Petition filed by Cristina Arienda would
contract with his client Elisa Menes. be in the interest of Atty. Aguila’s client.
 The statements in the opposition are "all And, rightly, Atty. Aguila should "favor"
lies." his client.
 Atty. Aguila lied in his Motion for  With respect to the allegation as to the
Substitution as to the existence and falsity of the marriage contract between
rights of Cristina Arienda, complainant the decedent and Atty. Aguila’s client,
herein. Elisa, three points should be considered:
Respondent: 1. Such falsity would first have to be

determined and established in the
 Disputed that he was guilty of deceit, appropriate
misconduct, or using a falsified public proceeding. Perhaps that
document. proceeding is the Special Proceedings
 Denied that he complicated the Case, now still
petition for letters of administration filed pending.
by complainant. 2. Such marriage contract would
 There was no reason for him to have to have been introduced into
complicate the petition when he only evidence. And only the trial
assisted Elisa as her counsel. court, where the matter is now pending,
 The filing of the Opposition was done to can say that the evidence has
protect her interest and the rights of her indeed been already
daughter over the estate of the introduced.
decedent. 3. Knowledge of the falsity of the
 Denied having submitted a falsified evidence is an indispensable element of
marriage contract for his client Elisa. this offense. And
 Explained that he acted in good faith such knowledge has not been claimed,
and without malice when the marriage alleged or proven.
contract between the decedent and
Elisa was attached to the verified  With respect to the alleged "lies"
opposition to the complainant’s petition introduced by Atty. Aguila before the
for letters of administration. RTC, it is the judge in that trial court who
23 | P a g e
has the immediate jurisdiction to  Moreover, whether or not the marriage
evaluate the veracity of the claims and contract was falsified is a matter within
evidences presented before him. the appreciation of the trial judge in the
 The judge had found no such findings of special proceeding case in which the
"lies" therein. Moreover, it appears that subject document was adduced in
all these things are still pending before evidence.
the judge. This Commission cannot  Finally, respondent has adequately
attempt to supersede a judge’s findings explained in his Comment that said
in a trial that he is presently hearing. document was submitted merely to
prove his client’s contention that the
IBP Board of Governors: DISMISSED the Complaint decedent represented himself to be
based on the Report and Recommendation of single and that believing that the latter
Commissioner Funa. was single, she contracted marriage
with him, which union produced an
offspring in the person of her daughter,
Issue:
Ernessa Arienda.
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred on

Apart from the allegations she made in various
the ground of deceit, misconduct, and use of
pleadings, complainant has not proferred any
falsified public document.
proof tending to show that respondent
deliberately applied deceitful means to warrant
Ruling: any administrative sanction.
NO. The SC agreed in the Commissioner’s  It is one thing to allege deceit,

conclusion that respondent cannot be found misconduct, and another to
guilty of the charges against him. (DISMISSED) demonstrate by evidence the specific
acts constituting the same.
 It is clearly shown that respondent Atty.  (RELATED TO TOPIC): In disbarment
Aguila, is the legal counsel of Elisa proceedings, the burden of proof is
Menes-Arienda. As such, Atty. Aguila, upon the complainant and this Court will
as his client’s advocate has the right, exercise its disciplinary power only if the
nay, the duty, to file an opposition to the former establishes its case by clear,
petition for letters of administration filed convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
by complainant in order to safeguard his  In this regard, complainant failed to
client’s interest. meet the required standard. Thus,
absent a showing of clear preponderant
With respect to the alleged use of falsified evidence to sustain the charge against
document, particularly the attachment of the respondent, the complaint must be
marriage contract between the decedent and dismissed.
respondent’s client in the Opposition she filed to
complainant’s petition: The SC is not unmindful of the principle that
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
 There is no compelling reason to deflect generis, in that they are neither civil nor criminal
from the findings of the IBP actions but rather investigations by the Court into
Commissioner that complainant has the conduct of its officers.
likewise failed to substantiate such
naked claim.  However, although these proceedings
 A study of the document on which the are not, in the strict sense, ordinary
complaint is anchored shows that the actions where trials are held and the
photocopy is not a certified true rules of procedure apply, the rules on
copy. Neither was it testified on by any evidence cannot be shunted aside
witness who is in a position to establish considering that the exercise of one’s
the authenticity of the document. profession is at stake.
24 | P a g e
12. Chan v NLRC Comm. Go, Et., Al. complainant’s claim. Except for complainant’s
bare allegations, there is no proof that
Doctrine: respondents engaged in influence peddling,
extortion, or in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is deceitful conduct. It is axiomatic that he who
upon the complainant and this Court will exercise alleges the same has the onus of validating it.
its disciplinary power only if the complainant Court noted that the labor case of Tiu has
establishes his case by clear, convincing and already been decided in the latter’s favor prior
satisfactory evidence. the alleged meetings. Even after the said
meetings, the NLRC still affirmed the decision of
Facts: the labor arbiter which was adverse to herein
complainant and his companies. If respondent
Complainant Gregory U. Chan prayed for Go really agreed to influence the outcome of the
the disbarment or imposition of proper disciplinary case, then the results would have been otherwise.
sanctions upon respondents Commissioner In addition, the receipts presented by
Romeo Go of the National Labor Relations complainant do not necessarily prove the
Commission (NLRC) and Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras presence of respondents in said meetings. They
for perpetrating acts unbecoming and degrading only show that certain persons went to the
to the legal profession. Complainant alleged that aforenamed restaurants to eat and meet.
respondents are influence peddlers who pride However, it could not be said with certainty that
themselves in being able to direct the outcome of respondents were among them – based only on
cases pending before the NLRC.
the receipts presented.
The present controversy stemmed from
The Court cannot lend credence to
an illegal dismissal case filed by Susan Que Tiu
complainant’s allegation that he or his group met
against complainant and his companies. The
with respondents six or seven times. Complainant
controversy stemmed from an illegal dismissal
and his group were allegedly angered, insulted,
case filed by Susan Que Tiu against complainant
and offended by respondents yet they still agreed
and his companies. Complainant alleged that
to foot the bills for the meals. Even after the denial
they had seven (7) meetings, usually in restaurants,
by the NLRC of their motion for reconsideration,
wherein respondent Go claimed to be high
with nothing more to discuss, complainants still
ranking commissioner in the NLRC and also
allegedly met with respondents. These actions are
presented to the complainant respondent Atty
not in accord with human behavior, logic, and
Paras to act as legal counsel.. (Naa sa full text ang
common sense. At this time, complainant would
mga details sa alleged meetings. Pero dili naman
have known that respondents could not deliver on
relevant sa topic ang specifics sa meetings nila).
their alleged promises to influence the outcome
As proof of these meetings, complainant
of the case in his favor; that they were only trying
attached receipts for the meals ordered at the
to extort money from him, and abusing him for free
above-mentioned establishments and affidavits
meals. As such, he should have stopped meeting
of Jenny Chan, Leah Pascual, and Glenn
them, or immediately filed criminal and/or
Chan, recounting the matters that transpired
administrative charges against them, or at the
therein.
least, refused to foot the bill for their meals.
Issue: Dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents
Whether or not respondents should be disbarred. Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and NLRC Commissioner
Romeo Go is DISMISSED for lack of merit
Ruling:
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of

proof is upon the complainant and this Court will TOPIC : PRESUM PTI ON, BURDEN OF PROOF ,
exercise its disciplinary power only if the WEI GHT OF EVI DENCE, BEST EVI DENCE RULE
complainant establishes his case by clear,
13. Concerned Citizen v Divina
convincing and satisfactory evidence.
After a careful study of the instant case, Facts:
we find no sufficient evidence to support
25 | P a g e
This disposition addresses the administrative an inventory of the docket folders, he discovered
complaints against respondent Divina, a Court that Divina had a backlog of untranscribed
Stenographer of the RTC of Balanga City, Bataan. stenographic notes as far back as 2001.
These complaints include:
a) an undated anonymous letter-

complaint filed by a "Concerned Citizen"
charging her with Gross Misconduct for
her alleged attempt to extort ₱20K in
FULL-BLOWN INVESTIGATION BY JUDGE ESCALADA
exchange for the Transcript of
(In compliance to a Resolution)
Stenographic Notes (TSN) of their case;
b) a letter-complaint by Atty. Teodoro
Camacho III (Atty. Camacho) for her Judge Escalada reported that Divina faced three
alleged arrogant behavior; and (3) charges; (1) extortion and delay in submitting
c) a complaint-affidavit filed by Ricardo the Transcript of Stenographic Notes in Civil Case
charging her with extortion and No. 7400; (2) delay in submitting the TSN covering
inefficiency (Civil Case No. 7400). the proceeding in other cases; and (3) belligerent
attitude exhibited against Atty. Camacho.
FIRST COMPLAINT: The records showed that an
anonymous complaint was filed by a "Concerned Petitioner Ricardo in Civil Case No. 7400, for
Citizen" against Divina for Grave Misconduct. annulment of marriage, testified that he was not
According to the letter-sender, Divina demanded the author of the anonymous complaint. He
P20K from them in exchange for the TSN of their alleged that on the day he took the witness stand,
case. Divina allegedly threatened them that if Divina waved her hand at him while he was still
they failed to give her money, she would not outside the courtroom, and after the hearing, she
prepare the TSN they were requesting, which told him to secure the TSN of his testimony in order
would result in the delay in the disposition of their that the psychologist/expert witness may review
case. This matter was referred to Executive Judge the same. Divina asked money from him and he
Escalada, of RTC Balanga City, Bataan, for gave her P100. Also, before the date of the
hearing wherein he would present the
discreet investigation. His investigation report
psychologist, he approached Divina and asked
revealed that he could not ascertain the identity
her about the transcript, but he was told by her
of the letter-writer. However, one court litigant
that, "Marami pa akong ginagawa at marami
executed a sworn statement alleging that Divina pang nakapila, kaya di ko pa magawa." He
demanded money from him when he asked for a followed up his request for the TSN for several times,
copy of TSN. but he felt that Divina was making it difficult for him
to get the transcript. Thus, the next time
The anonymous complaint was referred to Divina respondent asked money from him, he readily
for comment. She denied that she demanded gave her P500 although he was aware that the
P20K from a court litigant, and that she had been transcript costs only P10 per page. Later, he went
delaying the release of the TSN of cases assigned again to Divina and asked for the transcript, but
to her. She maintained that most of the time, TSNs the latter failed to give him the TSN.
were given for free because majority of the
litigants in their court are indigents and her Moreover, Atty. Camacho’s complaint stemmed
townmates. She even had to bring home some of from a verbal row he had with at the lawyer’s
her work so that she can finish transcribing them table while a hearing was going on. Atty.
and she reports for work even on her birthdays Camacho testified that, on August 18, 2005, he
and when her children were in the hospital, just to was at the sala of Regional Trial Court, Balanga
finish her work. City, Bataan, as counsel of one of the accused,
and waiting for his case to be called. He was then
SECOND COMPLAINT: Atty. Camacho holding the TSN of the case, where Atty. Baluyot
complained about the arrogance of Divina when was the counsel of the other accused. He told Atty.
he requested for a TSN, which the latter failed to Baluyot that he could ask for a copy of the said
submit on time. When Judge Escalada conducted TSN from Divina. When the latter heard what he
26 | P a g e
had advised to Atty. Baluyot, she arrogantly asked under her supervision; and 3) order Judge
him, with piercing eyes, "Gusto mo ngayon ko Escalada to review the performance rating of
kukunin?"According to Atty. Camacho, prior to Divina for the period from January to June 2007,
the incident, he had repeatedly requested for the pursuant to Circular No. 172-2003 dated
TSN from Divina, who promised to give him a copy December 2, 2003 and to submit his
few days before the scheduled hearing. recommendations to this Court through the
Performance Evaluation Committee (PERC), OCA.
Judge Escalada found Divina liable for the
following: In compliance with the directive, Judge Escalada
submitted a letter informing the Court that he
a) violation of Section 11 of Rule 141 due to gave Divina a "Satisfactory" rating for her work
her unauthorized collection of payments performance from January to March 2007. Judge
from complainant Ricardo for the TSN in Tanciangco, Presiding Judge of the 1st Municipal
Civil Case No. 7400; and, Circuit Trial Court of Dinalupihan Hermosa, Bataan
b) unjustified delay in preparing the TSN in (MCTC), where Divina was detailed from April to
Civil Case No. 7400 despite repeated September 2007, gave her a "Very Satisfactory"
demands of Ricardo and for failure to rating for the period April to June 22, 2007. Instead
timely submit the TSN due from her in other of six (6) months suspension, Judge Escalada
cases.
recommended that the Court impose upon Divina
the penalty of suspension from the service for two
EXTORTION CASE: Judge Escalada, however, (2) months, without salary and with warning,
accorded Divina the benefit of the doubt on considering that Divina’s work performance had
Ricardo’s allegation of extortion in the light of his improved.
ambiguous testimony on the matter. In the
absence of sufficient proof, he absolved Divina of
Further, the OCA stated that Divina’s
the extortion charge by the "Concerned Citizen,"
improvement in her work performance would not
whose identity had remained unknown even until
exonerate her from her culpability for inefficiency
the investigation was over.
and violation of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel, particularly, Section 4, Canon 1 which
BELLIGERENT ATTITUDE EXHIBITED TOWARDS ATTY. prohibits court personnel from accepting any fee
CAMACHO: Judge Escalada found that it was not or remuneration beyond what they receive or are
sufficiently established, although evidence on this entitled to in their official capacity. The OCA
score all the more showed how inefficient and recommended that Divina be found guilty of gross
ineffective Divina had become as a stenographer. violation of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel for demanding money over and above
RECOMMENDATION: Judge Escalada the fees of TSN as provided for in the Rules and
recommended that Divina be suspended from recommended that she be dismissed from service.
service for not less than six (6) months without pay.
Issue:
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA)
Whether or not is guilty for the charges against her?
They agreed that Divina was guilty of inefficiency
in the performance of duty and violation of
Ruling:
Section 11, Rule 141 and Section 17, Rule 136 of
the Rules of Court, and Administrative Circular No.
24-90. However, it recommended instead, a NO, failure to satisfy the quantum of proof required
penalty of suspension from service for one (1) year in administrative proceedings. BUT she was still
without pay. suspended from service as to inefficiency and
violation of the provisions of Administrative
In another Resolution, the Court resolved to: 1) re- Circular No. 24-90 (Rules on Transcription of
docket the complaint as a regular administrative Stenographic Notes and their Transmission to
matter; 2) direct the Clerk of Court of the RTC to Appellate Court).
properly monitor the Stenographic Reporters
27 | P a g e
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of of Atty. Camacho for a copy of the TSN, not for
proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial himself, but for his lawyer friend. Besides, there is
evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind no showing that her behavior at that time was
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. calculated merely to disrespect, humiliate or insult
The complainant has the burden of proving by Atty. Camacho before those present during the
substantial evidence the allegations in the hearing. It is significant to note that Atty. Camacho
complaint. has not cited any other similar incident to validate
his accusation of her alleged belligerent attitude
ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT towards him.
In the case at hand, there is no sufficient, clear ACCUSATION OF EXTORTION

and convincing evidence to hold Divina
administratively liable for Gross Misconduct as This accusation must also be dismissed. The
charged in the undated anonymous letter. As charge of extortion is a factual matter which must
found during the investigation, apart from the be established and proved with sufficient
allegation of the "Concerned Citizen," not a competent evidence.
scintilla of evidence was proffered to establish
that she demanded and solicited the amount of In the case at hand, Ricardo, upon whom rests the
P20K from a party in a pending case before the burden of proving his cause of action, failed to
RTC in exchange for the prompt preparation of show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon
the TSN. It bears to point out that the author of the which he based his claim. No clear and solid proof
undated anonymous letter never came out in the was offered by Ricardo to show that Divina
open to testify before the Investigating Judge to demanded money from him in exchange for
support his claim that Divina had engaged in an immediate preparation of his TSN.
illegal activity to make money out of a case
pending before the RTC. An accusation of extortion is a very serious charge
which, if properly substantiated, would entail not
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. Hence only Divina’s dismissal from the Judiciary but also
the rule that, he who alleges a fact has the burden a possible criminal prosecution. To be sure, it will
of proving it for mere allegation is not evidence. take more than a mere ambiguous testimony of a
Reliance on mere allegation, conjectures and lone witness to lend an aura of credibility to such
suppositions will leave an administrative complaint accusation.
with no leg to stand on. The allegation of
"Concerned Citizen" that Divina attempted to The records, however, are replete with evidence
extort ₱20K has remained as such and, thus, clearly showing that Divina is less than zealous in
cannot be admitted as evidence, let alone given the performance of her official duties as court
evidentiary weight. As it stands, this charge of stenographer. As such, she failed to live up to the
attempted extortion has remained standard of efficiency and professionalism that the
unsubstantiated and, hence, should be dismissed. Judiciary demands from its court personnel.
CHARGE OF BELLIGERENT/ARROGANT BEHAVIOR Divina failed to strictly follow Administrative

AGAINST DIVINA Circular No. 24-90 that prescribes the time for
completion and submission of TSN. There was a
This charge must fail. The records revealed that clear violation of the foregoing circular which was
the testimony of Atty. Camacho is inadequate to evident from the open court orders given by
establish his claim and to hold her liable for Judge Escalada:
misconduct
a) Order dated November 24, 2005 in
In the case at hand, Divina’s demeanor at the Criminal Case Nos. 7837-7840
time was nothing but an isolated emotional entitled People v. Roberto dela Peña, the
outburst after being apparently distracted from promulgation of judgment had to be
taking down stenographic notes of a proceeding deferred because of her delayed
because of the repetitious and annoying requests submission of the required TSN.
28 | P a g e
b) Order dated November 24, 2005 in transcribe the stenographic notes within twenty
Criminal Case No. 9786 entitled People v. days from the time they had been taken,
Fernando Uno y Giray; Order dated regardless of the presence or the absence of a
January 19, 2006 in Criminal Case No. demand for those notes by the parties.
9084 entitled People v. Ariel De Guzman y
Santos; and Order dated February 15,
For all her foregoing shortcomings, Divina has
2006 in Criminal Case No. 9697
entitled People v. Danilo Bonuel y shown her lack of dedication in the performance
Cuevas, the scheduled hearings were of her duties. As court stenographer, she knows or
reset to much later dates due to the ought to know that she performs an important role
unavailability or non-transcription by in running the machinery of our trial court system
Divina of the stenographic notes she took and that TSNs are vital for the speedy disposition
during the previous hearings. Divina of cases. The careless attitude displayed by Divina
offered no explanation for her failure to in performing her duties hampered the prompt
comply with the prescribed deadline. and proper administration of justice.
c) Memorandum dated February 6, 2006
addressed to Divina directing her to
The Supreme Court found Divina GUILTY of
immediately submit the TSN in People v.
Reynaldo Albarda dated December 20, inefficiency and violation of the provisions of
2001, April 29, 2003 and February 4, 2005 Administrative Circular No. 24-90. Hence, she is
under pain of disciplinary action should hereby SUSPENDED FROM SERVICE for the period
she fail to do so. of ONE (1) YEAR without pay, with a stern warning
d) On February 27, 2006, Divina received that repetition of the same or similar acts in the
from Judge Escalada another future shall be dealt with more severely.
letter dated February 23, 2006 requiring
her to submit with utmost dispatch the
14. Aba, ET., AL v Attys. De Guzman, ET.,
long overdue TSN in numerous civil and
criminal cases contained in a 7-page list. AL.
e) Due to her noncompliance, Judge
Escalada was constrained to issue Facts:
another Memorandum 31 dated April 18,
2006 directing her to submit all the TSNs Complainants claim that in January 2006 they
due from her on or before May 2006 and met former Pasay City Regional Trial Court
excluding her, in the meantime, from Judge Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. (De
court duty of taking down stenographic Guzman) in Cotabato City. De Guzman
notes during hearings. In evaluating allegedly persuaded them to file an illegal
Divina’s work performance, Judge
recruitment case against certain persons, in
Escalada rated Divina "Unsatisfactory" for
exchange for money. De Guzman allegedly
the period from July to December 2006.
Her poor rating was due to her delays in represented to complainants that his group,
submitting the required TSNs. composed of Pasay City Mayor Wenceslao
"Peewee" Trinidad (Trinidad), Atty. Andresito
The evidence also showed that Divina gave Fornier (Fornier), Everson Lim Go Tian, Emerson
Ricardo difficult time in securing the needed TSN Lim Go Tian, and Stevenson Lim Go Tian (Go
in Civil Case No. 7400. Despite numerous requests Tian Brothers), were untouchable.
and follow-ups, Ricardo failed to get from her
copies of the TSN though he already paid for them. In the third week of February 2006,
complainants allegedly received from De
Guzman a prepared Joint Complaint-
Divina clearly failed to faithfully comply with the
prescribed period provided in Administrative Affidavit with supporting documents, which
Circular No. 24-90 and, thus, she must be faulted. they were directed to sign and file. The Joint
Moreover, as observed by Judge Escalada, of the Complaint-Affidavit and supporting
four stenographers assigned to his court, only documents were allegedly fabricated and
Divina was found to be delinquent in the manufactured by De Guzman.
transcription of stenographic notes. It is
During the proceedings before the
noteworthy that Administrative Circular No. 24-90
Cotabato City Prosecutor's Office,
imposes upon all court stenographers the duty to
29 | P a g e
complainants allegedly received several times, dates, places and circumstances of the
phone calls from De Guzman, Trinidad, meetings and conversations with him. Trinidad
Fornier, and the Go Tian brothers, all of them asserted that the complaint was a fabricated,
continuously telling complainants to pursue politically motivated charge, spearheaded
the case. When complainants asked De by a certain Joseph Montesclaros
Guzman what would happen if a warrant of (Montesclaros), designed to tarnish Trinidad's
arrest would be issued, De Guzman allegedly reputation as a lawyer and city
replied, "Ipa tubus natin sa kanila, perahan mayor. Trinidad claims that Montesclaros was
natin sila." motivated by revenge because Montesclaros
mistakenly believed that Trinidad ordered the
Complainants claim they were
raid of his gambling den in Pasay City. Trinidad
bothered by their conscience, and that is why
also claims that he, his family members and
they told De Guzman and his group that they
close friends have been victims of fabricated
planned to withdraw the criminal complaint.
criminal charges committed by the syndicate
Complainants were allegedly offered by
headed by Montesclaros.
respondents P200,000.00 to pursue the case,
but they refused. Complainants were once Trinidad pointed out that this
again allegedly offered by respondents One syndicate, headed by Montesclaros, is
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) to pursue the abusing court processes by filing fabricated
case until the end, but they refused again. For criminal complaints of illegal recruitment in
this reason, respondents allegedly remote areas with fabricated addresses of
orchestrated the filing of fabricated charges defendants. Since the defendants' addresses
for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa are fabricated, the defendants are not
against complainants in Iligan City. On 30 informed of the criminal complaint, and thus
November 2006, Aba claims to have received the information is filed with the court.
a text message from De Guzman, Consequently, a warrant of arrest is issued by
saying, "Gud p.m. Tago na kayo. Labas today the court, and only when the warrant of arrest
from Iligan Warrant of Arrest. No Bail. Dating sa is served upon the defendant will the latter
Ctbto pulis mga Wednesday. Gud luck kayo." know of the criminal complaint. At this point,
Montesclaros intervenes by extorting money
In support of their allegations in the
from the defendant in order for the
administrative complaint, complainants
complainants to drop the criminal complaint.
submitted the allegedly fabricated
To prove the existence of this syndicate,
complaint, supporting documents, letter of
Trinidad presented the letter of Eden Rabor,
De Guzman to Cotabato City Councilor
then a second year law student in Cebu City,
Orlando Badoy, De Guzman's Affidavit of
to the Philippine Center for Investigative
Clarification, and other relevant documents.
Journalism and to this Court, requesting these
Subsequently, complainants filed a Motion to
institutions to investigate the syndicate of
Dismiss Complaint against Atty. Trinidad and
Montesclaros, who has victimized a Canadian
Atty. Fornier, and prayed that the complaint
citizen who was at that time jailed in Cebu
be pursued against De Guzman.
City due to an extortion racket. Trinidad also
Trinidad, on the other hand, in his presented the Decision of Branch 65 of the
Comment filed with this Court and Position Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City on the illegal
Paper filed with the Commission on Bar recruitment charge against his friend,
Discipline, denied all the allegations in the Emmanuel Cinco, which charge was
complaint. Trinidad vehemently declared dismissed because the charge was
that he has never communicated with any of fabricated, as admitted by complainants
the complainants and has never been to themselves.
Cotabato. He further claimed that the
Fornier, on the other hand, in his
subscribed letter-complaint does not contain
Comment filed with this Court and Position
ultimate facts because it does not specify the
Paper filed with the Commission on Bar
30 | P a g e
Discipline, claimed that in his 35 years as a who were charged for violation of Republic
member of the bar, he has conducted himself Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), which
professionally in accordance with the charge was subsequently dismissed through a
exacting standards of the legal profession. Joint Resolution rendered by the Prosecutor,
Fornier denied knowing any of the did not submit any Joint Counter-Affidavit in
complainants, and also denied having any connection with the charge, nor did they file
dealings or communication with any of them. any Affidavit of Complaint against any
He likewise claimed that he has not filed, person.
either for himself or on behalf of a client, any
In his Position Paper filed with the
case, civil, criminal or otherwise, against
Commission on Bar Discipline, De Guzman
complainants. Fornier claimed that he was
stated he is an 81-year old retired Regional
included in this case for acting as defense
Trial Court judge. He pointed out that there
counsel for the Go Tian Brothers in criminal
are no details regarding the allegations of
complaints for illegal recruitment. Fornier
grave and serious misconduct, dishonesty,
claimed that the Go Tian Brothers are victims
oppression, bribery, falsification of
of an extortion racket led by Montesclaros. For
documents, violation of lawyers' oath and
coming to the legal aid of the Go Tian
other administrative infractions. De Guzman
Brothers, Fornier exposed and thwarted the
invited the attention of the Investigating
plan of the group of Montesclaros to extort
Commissioner to his Affidavit of Clarification
millions of pesos from his clients. Fornier
which he submitted in I.S. No. 2006-C-31 to
claimed that the filing of the complaint is
deny any participation in the preparation of
apparently an attempt of the syndicate to
the criminal complaint and to narrate in detail
get even at those who may have exposed
how he became involved in this case which
and thwarted their criminal designs at
was masterminded by Montesclaros. In his
extortion. Fornier prays that the Court will not
Affidavit of Clarification, De Guzman claimed
fall prey to the scheme and machinations of
that he had no participation in the
this syndicate that has made and continues to
preparation of the criminal complaint in I.S.
make a mockery of the justice system by
No. 2006-C-31, and he was surprised to
utilizing the courts, the Prosecutor's Offices,
receive a photocopy of the counter-affidavit
the Philippine National Police and the
of Rogelio Atangan, Atty. Nicanor G. Alvarez,
Philippine Overseas Employment
Lolita Zara, Marcelo Pelisco and Atty. Roque
Administration in carrying out their criminal
A. Amante, Jr., implicating him in the
activities. Lastly, Fornier claimed that
preparation of the complaint. De Guzman
complainants failed to establish the charges
stated that he was surprised to find his and his
against him by clear, convincing and
clients' names in the counter-affidavit, and for
satisfactory proof, as complainants' affidavits
this reason, felt under obligation to make the
are replete with pure hearsay, speculations,
Affidavit of Clarification. Lastly, De Guzman
conjectures and sweeping conclusions,
declared that he has "no familiarity with the
unsupported by specific, clear and
complainants or Tesclaros Recruitment and
convincing evidence.
Employment Agency, nor with other
De Guzman, on the other hand, respondents in the complaint, but he believes
instead of filing a Comment with this Court, that Atty. Roque A. Amante, Jr. and Atty.
filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint on the Nicanor G. Alvarez are the key players of
ground that the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Joseph L. Montesclaros in the illegal
Affidavit of Complaint attached to the Letter- recruitment business."
Complaint, which was made the basis of this
During the mandatory conference
administrative complaint, are spurious.
hearings on 28 November 2008 and 13 March
According to the Certification issued by the
2009, none of the complainants appeared
Office of the City Prosecutor in Iligan City,
before the Investigating Commissioner to
complainants Lauban, Lumabao and Aba,
31 | P a g e
substantiate the allegations in their complaint But what should appear to be a truly
despite due notice. vicious evidence for Respondent is the letter
he sent to Orlando D. Badoy, City Councilor,
The recommendation of the
Cotabato City dated February 16, 2006. This
Investigating Commissioner of the
letter was alleged in and attached to the
Commission on Bar Discipline reads:
Joint Counter-Affidavit with Affidavit of
In view of the Complaint. The letter had confirmed the
foregoing, the charges against allegation of his travel to Cotabato City to file
the Respondent Trinidad and charges against persons he did not identify.
Fornier are deemed to be He intriguingly mentioned the name Ben
without basis and Danda as the one to whom he handed the
consequently, the undersigned complaint. Danda, incidentally, was one of
recommends DISMISSAL of the those who executed the Letter of Complaint
charges against them. along with Siao Aba, Miko Lumabao,
Benjamin Danda and Almasis Lauban which
As to Respondent de
was filed before the Supreme Court.
Guzman, a former Regional
Trial Court Judge, there is Issue:
enough basis to hold him
administratively liable. Whether the complainants have established
Accordingly, a penalty of the burden of proof to sustain the allegations
SUSPENSION for two (2) months of misconduct against De Guzman.
is hereby recommended.
Ruling:
The Investigating Commissioner
NO.
found, after a careful perusal of the
allegations in the complaint as well as in the The Court reverses the Decision of the
attachments that complainants failed to Board of Governors and the Report and
substantiate their charges against Recommendation of the Investigating
respondents Trinidad and Fornier. Other than Commissioner regarding De Guzman's liability
bare allegations, complainants did not for the following reasons: (a) the documents
adduce proof of Trinidad and Fornier's submitted by complainants in support of their
supposed involvement or participation complaint are not credible; (b) complainants
directly or indirectly in the acts constituting the did not appear in any of the mandatory
complaint. In addition, complainants, on conference proceedings to substantiate the
their own volition, admitted the non- allegations in their complaint; and (c)
participation and non-involvement of Trinidad complainants were not able to prove by
and Fornier when complainants filed preponderance of evidence that De Guzman
their Motion to Dismiss Complaint against Atty. communicated with them for the purpose of
Trinidad and Atty. Fornier Only. For these filing fabricated illegal recruitment charges for
reasons, the Investigating Commissioner purposes of extortion.
recommended that the charges against
The documents submitted by
Trinidad and Fornier be dismissed for utter lack
complainants are clearly not credible. First,
of merit.
complainants submitted a Joint Counter-
On the other hand, the Investigating Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint, which
Commissioner stated that De Guzman failed contained all their allegations of misconduct
to deny the allegations in the Letter- against De Guzman, Trinidad and Fornier.
Complaint or to explain the import of the Complainants misled the Investigating
same. Moreover, De Guzman failed to Commissioner, the Board of Governors of the
controvert the "truly vicious evidence" against Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and this
him: Court into believing that the Joint Counter-
32 | P a g e
Affidavit and Affidavit of Complaint was against respondents, is spurious, not having
submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor been submitted to the Office of the City
in Iligan to rebut the illegal recruitment Prosecutor of Iligan, despite purportedly
charges against them. The Joint Counter- having the signature and seal of the
Affidavit and Affidavit of prosecutor. DCHIAS
Complaint purportedly appears to be
Third, the allegations of complainants
subscribed and sworn to before a prosecutor.
lack material details to prove their
After inquiry by De Guzman, however, the
communication with De Guzman. If De
Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan issued a
Guzman really called and texted them that a
Certification denying the submission of this
warrant of arrest would be issued, what
document by complainants.
mobile number did De Guzman use? Out of
To repeat, complainants deceived the voluminous documents that complainants
and misled the Investigating Commissioner, submitted, where is the warrant for their
the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar arrest? What is their occupation or profession?
of the Philippines, and this Court into believing Who are these complainants? These questions
that the Joint Counter-Affidavit and Affidavit are unanswered because complainants did
of Complaint, which contained all their not even bother to attend any mandatory
allegations of misconduct, were submitted conference called by the Investigating
and sworn to before a prosecutor. This Commissioner, despite due notice. For this
deception gives doubt to the credibility of the reason, the allegations of De Guzman's
other documents complainants submitted in misconduct are really doubtful.
support of their administrative charges
Lastly, the supposedly "vicious"
against respondents. Worse, complainants
evidence against De Guzman, which was a
submitted falsified documents to the
letter he allegedly sent to Cotabato City
Investigating Commissioner, the Board of
Councilor Orlando Badoy, is not credible.
Governors, and this Court.
The signatures of De Guzman in his
Second, De Guzman, Fornier and
Affidavit of Clarification and in the purported
Trinidad all claim that complainants are part
letter have material discrepancies. At the
of a syndicate headed by Montesclaros that
same time, complainants did not even
has perfected the filing of fabricated criminal
explain how they were able to get a copy of
charges. Given this claim that complainants
the purported letter. Complainants did not
are well-adept in filing fabricated criminal
present the recipients, Orlando Badoy or Atty.
charges supported by fabricated documents,
Francis V. Gustilo, to authenticate the letter. In
this Court is more cautious in appreciating the
addition, none of the complainants
supporting documents submitted by
appeared before the Investigating
complainants. Complainants bear the burden
Commissioner to substantiate their allegations
of proof to establish that all the documents
or authenticate the supporting documents.
they submitted in support of their allegations
of misconduct against respondents are Generally, the letter would have
authentic. Unfortunately, complainants did been given weight, if not for the fact that
not even attend any mandatory conference complainants, whom respondents claim are
called by the Investigating Commissioner to part of an extortion syndicate, are consistently
identify the documents and substantiate or involved in the fabrication of evidence in
narrate in detail the allegations of misconduct support of their criminal complaints.
allegedly committed by respondents. To Moreover, contrary to the Investigating
make matters worse, the Joint Counter- Commissioner's observation, De Guzman
Affidavit and Affidavit of actually denied any involvement in the
Complaint complainants attached to their preparation of complainants' criminal
Letter-Complaint, which supposedly complaint in I.S. No. 2006-C-31
contained all their allegations of misconduct
33 | P a g e
For these reasons, the Court finds that Presumption, Burden of Proof and Weight of
the documents submitted by complainants in Evidence
support of their complaint against De Guzman
Section 3 (a), Rule 131 of the Rules of
are not credible. Accordingly, the Court
Court provides that a person is presumed
dismisses the charges against De Guzman.
innocent of crime or wrongdoing. This Court
De Guzman enjoys the legal has consistently held that an attorney enjoys
presumption that he committed no crime or the legal presumption that he is innocent of
wrongdoing. Complainants have the burden charges against him until the contrary is
of proof to prove their allegations of proved, and that as an officer of the court, he
misconduct against De Guzman. is presumed to have performed his duties in
Complainants were not able to discharge this accordance with his oath.
burden because the documents they
Burden of proof, on the other hand, is
submitted were not authenticated and were
defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as the duty of
apparently fabricated. Also, complainants
a party to present evidence on the facts in
did not appear in the mandatory conference
issue necessary to establish his claim or
proceedings to substantiate the allegations in
defense by the amount of evidence required
their complaint. In disbarment proceedings,
by law. In disbarment proceedings, the
what is required to merit the administrative
burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
penalty is preponderance of evidence, which
and for the court to exercise its disciplinary
weight is even higher than substantial
powers, the case against the respondent must
evidence in the hierarchy of evidentiary
be established by convincing and satisfactory
values. Complainants were not able to prove
proof.
by preponderance of evidence that De
Guzman communicated with them and Weight and sufficiency of evidence,
persuaded them to file fabricated charges under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not
against other people for the purpose of determined mathematically by the numerical
extorting money. In fact, even if the evidence superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given
of the parties are evenly balanced, the Court fact. It depends upon its practical effect in
must rule in favor of De Guzman according to inducing belief for the party on the judge
the equipoise doctrine. For these reasons, the trying the case.
Court reverses the Decision of the Board of
Consequently, in the hierarchy of
Governors and the Report and
evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable
Recommendation of the Investigating
doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear
Commissioner, and accordingly dismisses the
and convincing evidence, then by
charges against De Guzman. aIcSED
preponderance of evidence, and lastly by
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the substantial evidence, in that
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of order. Considering the serious consequences
the Philippines, adopting the Report and of the disbarment or suspension of a member
Recommendation of the Investigating of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that
Commissioner, and DISMISS the charges clearly preponderant evidence is necessary
against Attys. Wenceslao "Peewee" Trinidad to justify the imposition of administrative
and Andresito Fornier for utter lack of merit. penalty on a member of the Bar.
We REVERSE the Decision of the Board of
When the evidence of the parties are
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
evenly balanced or there is doubt on which
Philippines, modifying and increasing the
side the evidence preponderates, the
penalty in the Report and Recommendation
decision should be against the party with the
of the Investigating Commissioner, and
burden of proof, according to the equipoise
accordingly DISMISS the charges against
doctrine.
Atty. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. also for utter
lack of merit.
34 | P a g e
To summarize, the Court has Goopio also claimed that she subsequently
consistently held that in suspension or discovered that no such petition was filed nor was
disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the one pending before the RTC or any tribunal, and
lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, due to the inaction of Atty. Maglalang it resulted
and the burden of proof rests upon the in the continued accrual of interest payments as
complainant to prove the allegations in his well as other charges on her properties.
complaint. The evidence required in
suspension or disbarment proceedings is All these were admitted by Atty. Maglalang
preponderance of evidence. In case the through Goopio’s representative, Canoy. This
evidence of the parties are equally balanced, resulted to the revocation of the GPA and made
the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision a formal demand for restitution but remained
in favor of the respondent. unheeded.
In his verified answer, Atty. Maglalang denied

Goopio’s claims for being hearsay and without
15. Goopio v Maglalang basis. He said that , he had not met or known her
in 2005 or 2006, let alone provided legal services
Facts:
to her as her attorney-in-fact or counsel, or file any
petition at her behest. He also specifically denied
The case originated from a disbarment complaint
acceding to the GPA, receiving the P400k and
3 1led by Goopio charging Atty. Maglalang with
issuing receipts, nor received any demand letter.
violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.
Atty. Maglalang explained that Ma. Cecilia
Consunji (Consunji), Goopio’s sister and his client
In her disbarment complaint, Goopio primarily
since 2006, introduced him to Goopio in 2007. He
alleged that sometime in 2005, in relation to her
said that Consuji surreptitiously used his name and
need to resolve property concerns with respect to
reputation, and manipulated the supposed
12 parcels of land in Sagay City, she engaged the
"engagement" of his services as counsel for
services of Atty. Maglalang to represent her either
Goopio through the execution of a falsified GPA.
through a court action or through extra-judicial
That Consuji collected huge money from Goopio
means. While employed in Switzerland, she
by furtively using his computerized letterhead and
executed a GPA in favor of Atty. Maglalang,
billing statements.
authorizing him to settle the controversy covering
the properties with the developer, including the
To bolster his affirmative defense that no lawyer-
filing of a petition for rescission of contract with
client relationship existed between him and
damages.
Goopio, Atty. Maglalang submitted that in fact,
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City
Goopio further alleged that Atty. Maglalang
had earlier dismissed two complaints filed by
supposedly informed her that the petition for
Goopio against him for charges of falsification of
rescission was filed and pending with the (RTC) of
public documents and estafa by false pretenses.
Bacolod City, and that as payment, the latter
requested and received the total amount of
Report and Recommendation of IBP
P400,000.00 from her and presented an official
Commissioner
receipt covering the alleged deposit of the
P400,000.00 with the court. Found that a lawyer-client relationship existed
between complainant Goopio and Atty.
That Atty. Maglalang rendered legal services,
Maglalang evidenced by documents
such as appearances at mediations and hearings,
(photocopies) submitted by Goopio. That the
preparation of a reply between the months of
demand letter sufficiently established Atty.
December 2006 and April 2007 which she was
Maglalang’s receipt of the amount of P400k.
billed for P114,000.
35 | P a g e
He recommended that Atty. Maglalang be found Sec. 4. Original of document. — (a) The
guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules original of a document is one the
of Court and Canon 16 of the CPR and ordered contents of which are the subject of
the return of P400k, under pains of disbarment. inquiry.
IBP Board affirmed with modification (suspended (b) When a document is in two or more
for 3 yrs) copies executed at or about the same
time, with identical contents, all such
Issue: copies are equally regarded as originals.
WON Goopio was able to discharged the burden (c) When an entry is repeated in the
of proof. Are the photocopies in compliance with regular course of business, one being
the Best Evidence Rule? copied from another at or near the time
of the transaction, all the entries are
Ruling: likewise equally regarded as originals.
NO. Although a disbarment proceeding may not be

akin to a criminal prosecution, if the entire body of
In consideration of the gravity of the
proof consists mainly of the documentary
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of
evidence, and the content of which will prove
a member of the bar, we have consistently held
either the falsity or veracity of the charge for
that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of
disbarment, then the documents themselves, as
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon
submitted into evidence, must comply with the
the complainant to satisfactorily prove the
Best Evidence Rule, save for an established
allegations in his complaint through substantial
ground that would merit exception.
evidence.
Goopio failed to prove that the present case falls
A complainant's failure to dispense the same
within any of the exceptions that dispense with the
standard of proof stays the hand of the Court from
requirement of presentation of an original of the
meting out a disbarment or suspension order.
documentary evidence.
AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF, Best Evidence Rule,
Rationale under the BER: The avoidance of the
Substantial Evidence
dangers of mistransmissions and inaccuracies of
the content of the documents.
Goopio failed to discharge this burden of proof.
This is squarely true in the present disbarment

First. To prove their lawyer-client relationship,
complaint, with a main charge that turns on the
Goopio presented before the IBP photocopies of
very accuracy, completeness, and authenticity of
the GPA as well as acknowledgement receipts
the documents submitted into evidence.
issued Atty. Maglalang for the amounts he
allegedly received.
It is therefore non-sequitur to surmise that this
crucial preference for the original may be done
However, the photocopies submitted are in
away with or applied liberally in this case merely
violation of the Best Evidence Rule under Rule 130
by virtue of Atty. Maglalang's failure to appear
of the ROC. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 130 provide:
during the second mandatory conference. No
Sec. 3. Original document must be such legal license was intended either by the
produced; exceptions. — When the Rules on Evidence or the rules of procedure
subject of inquiry is the contents of a applicable to a disbarment case.
document, no evidence shall be
Nothing in the face of the notice provided that in
admissible other than the original
case of Atty. Maglalang's non-appearance, a
document itself, except in the (4
leniency in the consideration of the evidence
instances).
36 | P a g e
submitted would be in order. His non-appearance In the present case, substantial evidence was not
did not serve as a bar for Goopio to submit the established when Goopio failed to comply with
original copies of the documents. the Best Evidence Rule, and such failure is fatal to
her cause. Photocopies having no probative
That even when Goopio was ordered by the weight, she inevitably failed to discharged the
investigating commissioner to produce the burden of proof.
original of her documentary evidence, and
absent any bar in the applicable Rules for Neither will Atty. Maglalang's offer to restitute to
presentation of the same, she still failed to bring Goopio the monetary award pending 1nality of
forth said originals. the decision be deemed as his indirect admission
of guilt.
Goopio's duty to substantiate her charge was
separate and distinct from Atty. Maglalang's An examination of Atty. Maglalang's offer to
interests, and therefore, the latter's waiver would restitute would clearly show that there was no
not, as in fact it did not, affect the rights and admission of the acts being imputed against him.
burden of proof of the former. His offer was made "as a show of his honest desire"
to have the case resolved immediately, and his
In our ruling in Concepcion v. Fandiño, Jr., 43 a admission, if any, was limited to his failure to
disbarment case which involved as documentary immediately discover the manipulations of
evidence mere photocopies of the notarized complainant's sister.
documents upon which the main allegation
stood, even in disbarment proceedings which are It would be unjust to fault Atty. Maglalang's efforts
sui generis in nature, the Best Evidence Rule still to protect his reputation, especially in light of the
applies, and submission of mere photocopies of verity that the success of a lawyer in his profession
documentary evidence is unavailing for their depends almost entirely on his reputation, and
dearth of probative weight. anything which will harm his good name is to be
deplored.
In both Concepcion and the case at bar, the
allegations at the core of the disbarment Moreover, as expressed in Section 27, Rule 130 of
complaints both involve alleged violations, the the Rules of Court, an offer of compromise in the
truth or falsity of which relies on a determination of context of civil cases may not be taken as an
the authenticity of the documents that serve as admission of any liability.
the paper trail of said punishable acts.
However, we find that by his own recognition,
In both cases, the documentary evidence was the Atty. Maglalang's "failure to discover the
causal link that would chain the lawyers therein to manipulations of his former client before the
the violations alleged against them, and in the matter became worse" is material negligence, for
same manner, both central documentary which the penalty of reprimand, under the
evidence have collapsed under the probative circumstances of the case at bar, may be
weight that preponderance of evidence requires. consequently warranted. Veritably, a lawyer must
at all times exercise care and diligence in
Disbarment case being neither criminal nor civil in conducting the affairs of his practice, including
nature, these are not intended to inflict penal or the observation of reasonable due vigilance in
civil sanctions, but only to answer the main ensuring that, to the best of his knowledge, his
question, that is whether respondent is still fit to documents and other implements are not used to
continue to be an officer of the court in the further duplicitous and fraudulent activities.
dispensation of justice. The irreversible effects of
imposed penalties from the same must stand on
sufficiently established proof through substantial
evidence. Such quantum of proof is a burden that -------Nothing Follows---------
must be discharged by the complainant, in order
for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. -------God Bless Us All--------
37 | P a g e

Pale Case Digest Batch 9 2019 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale Case Digest Batch 9 2019 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale Case Digest Batch 9 2019 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main issue discussed in the case of Tan v IBP Commission on Bar Discipline?

What is the main issue discussed in the case of Tan v IBP Commission on Bar Discipline?

What duty did Goopio fail to fulfill in the case?

What duty did Goopio fail to fulfill in the case?

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

 A proceeding for suspension or The SC was constrained to give credence to the

TOPIC: AU TOM ATI C CON VERSI ON Ruling:

4, Dela Cruz v Atty. Luna In A.M. No. P-04-1821, respondent

In other words, an order to comment on the

Finally, the Joint Decision in the As it happened, convicted accused

As for the reasons proffered by By failing to decide/resolve the

For another, the first resetting of the

Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Respondent's claim of death threats

Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC

Where there are yet no proceedings against a

Section 18. Confidentiality. — Proceedings against 1. respondent AFP filed a disbarment

Ruling: In the present case, the Investigating

This disbarment case was filed by Rogelio

Respondent: 1. Such falsity would first have to be

Whether or not respondent should be disbarred on

NO. The SC agreed in the Commissioner’s  It is one thing to allege deceit,

Issue: Dispositive portion:

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of

a) an undated anonymous letter-

In the case at hand, there is no sufficient, clear ACCUSATION OF EXTORTION

CHARGE OF BELLIGERENT/ARROGANT BEHAVIOR Divina failed to strictly follow Administrative

In his verified answer, Atty. Maglalang denied

NO. Although a disbarment proceeding may not be

This is squarely true in the present disbarment

You might also like